It is not difficult to see how the story of Columbus was adapted so that he became the figure of progress rather than a lucky man who profited from his error. According to Jeffrey Burton Russell here (http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html), the invention of the flat Earth myth can be laid at the feet of the nineteenth century writer Washington Irving, who included it in his historical novel on Columbus, and the wider idea that the everyone in the Middle Ages was deluded has been widely accepted ever since.
The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/) published in 1896. This book has become something of a running joke among historians of science and it is dutifully mentioned as a prime example of misinformation in the preface of most modern works on science and religion. The flat Earth is discussed in chapter 2 (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter2.html) and one can almost sense White's confusion that hardly any of the sources support his hypothesis that Christians widely believed in it. He finds himself grudgingly admitting that St Clement, Origen, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Isodore, St Albertus Magnus and St Thomas Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the matter in doubt. Although an analysis of what White actually says suggests he was aware that the flat Earth was largely a myth, he certainly gives an impression of ignorant Christians suppressing rational knowledge of its real shape.
(http://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm)http://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm (http://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm)Anti-clerical history of science writers have promulgated the myth so that even today, in his book The Discoverers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394726251/bedeslibrary), Daniel Boorstin manages to produce a totally misleading account (although he eventually gets Columbus right). His bias shows badly when he castigates Christians for thinking the world was flat when they did not and then praises the erudition of Chinese geographers who actually did believe it. The myth is so prevalent that the blurb on the back cover of the UK version of Umberto Eco's book Serendipities (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156007517/bedeslibrary), the editor repeats the myth even though within the book itself, Eco devotes a good deal of attention to debunking it! The doyen of historians of medieval science, Edward Grant, covers the issue in his book, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521003377/bedeslibrary). He finds all educated people in the Middle Ages were well aware the Earth was a sphere. Perhaps today we can at last dispense with this patronising belief about people who lived in the past.
If one does not object on principle to Wikipedia, they have a decent article on this citing more sources that show that educated Catholics have always believed the earth is a globe.Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
Even if everyone believed in FE for a certain period of time in Church history, that doesn't rise to the level of Magisterium, much less a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.We need not imagine this contrafactual situation. There was virtually no authoritative teaching, magisterial or otherwise, to suggest that the earth was flat.
Even if everyone believed in FE for a certain period of time in Church history, that doesn't rise to the level of Magisterium, much less a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium..
Hey, for a long period of time, people also believed that it was permissible for a husband to subject his wife to corporal punishment. :P
In another thread, Meg made the astonishing claim that Catholics before the Reformation believed in FE. Usually, when I see such claims, they are made by enemies of the Church in an attempt to discredit her. It is simply not true.
Here is an explanation from James Hannam:
(http://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm)http://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm (http://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm)
Let me repeat this bit: "St Clement, Origen, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Isodore, St Albertus Magnus and St Thomas Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the matter in doubt."
St. Augustine explicitly wrote against spreading this sort of nonsense:
If one does not object on principle to Wikipedia, they have a decent article on this citing more sources that show that educated Catholics have always believed the earth is a globe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth)
...[W]e should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a [Traditional Catholic] and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside [Traditional Catholicism] think [Traditional Catholics] held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, [Traditional Catholics] are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they [hear] a [Traditional Catholic] ... maintaining his foolish opinions about our [faith], how are they going to believe [them] in matters concerning [Traditional Catholicism], when they think their [positions] are full of falsehoods ...? Reckless and incompetent expounders of [Traditional Catholicism, such as those here on CI] bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not [already persuaded of Traditional Catholicism].
And so what if some Catholics believed that the earth was flat? So did many of their non-Catholic contemporaries.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter all that much. Whatever we may believe the shape of the earth to be believe probably won't affect our salvation. I'm not sure that the matter would even have to be brought up, if we still lived in a culture that believed in Christ the King. But our society has long since moved away from any religious context, and that's why the discussion may be important.The whole point of that St. Augustine quote is that it matters a great deal. By destroying the credibility of Christianity, people espousing FE can lead to the loss of salvation. He is saying that it is disgraceful and dangerous nonsense with eternal consequences.
The whole point of that St. Augustine quote is that it matters a great deal. By destroying the credibility of Christianity, people espousing FE can lead to the loss of salvation. He is saying that it is disgraceful and dangerous nonsense with eternal consequences.
This matter does not need to be brought up. It does nothing to further the reign of Christ the King. On the contrary, it endangers souls.
Where, in that quote from St. Augustine, does it say anything about the flat earth? I'm not seeing it at all. And I'm not going to pay any attention to that Hannom fellow. He's just a lay person, like the rest of us.St. Augustine was writing about the danger of going against the accepted science of his day which included the fact that the earth is a globe. You have no problem accepting information from lay people who say that the earth is flat. Hannam is a perfectly reasonable source of information. If there are any errors you should point them out, not dismiss him automatically.
You'll have to provide specific quotes from the Church Fathers in proper context to prove your point about Catholics not believing in a flat earth before the 16th century. I'm talking about what regular every day Catholics believed. The man in the pew.
The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth.
How does the flat earth destroy credibility? And....St. Augustine doesn't say anything about the concept of the flat earth destroying the credibility of the Church, or Christianity, or salvation.You are claiming that the Church teaches something stupid. It makes the Church look stupid and it makes you look stupid. Then when we want to talk about important things pertaining to salvation, people aren't listening because they have already decided we are stupid.
St. Augustine was writing about the danger of going against the accepted science of his day which included the fact that the earth is a globe. You have no problem accepting information from lay people who say that the earth is flat. Hannam is a perfectly reasonable source of information. If there are any errors you should point them out, not dismiss him automatically.
The regular everyday Catholics of that time were mostly illiterate so they did not leave records of what they thought. The claim that they believed in a flat earth does not come from evidence but was made up by the Church's enemies.
By the time St. Thomas wrote the Summa, knowledge that the earth was a globe was so taken for granted that he merely mentions it in passing to illustrate another point:
You are claiming that the Church teaches something stupid. It makes the Church look stupid and it makes you look stupid. Then when we want to talk about important things pertaining to salvation, people aren't listening because they have already decided we are stupid.
Flat earth is exactly the sort of stupid thing that St. Augustine was writing about.
I'm sorry that you are embarrassed by the idea of the flat earth, which some of the Church Fathers believed in.Yes, in the early period of the Church some of the Church Fathers believed in a flat earth. The position of Catholics had changed by the time of Isidore of Seville. (around 600 AD). From that time on Christian thinkers all accepted the earth is a globe: Venerable Bede, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon. This is what was taught at Catholic universities starting in the middle ages (historically these were religious institutions.) This idea was not introduced by the Reformation as you claimed earlier. It was the natural development of Catholic thought, occurring early in our history.
St. Augustine made no mention of the flat earth, in your quote from him. I'll keep reminding you of that.
The ancient Hebrews also believed in a flat earth.
Yes, in the early period of the Church some of the Church Fathers believed in a flat earth. The position of Catholics had changed by the time of Isidore of Seville. (around 600 AD). From that time on Christian thinkers all accepted the earth is a globe: Venerable Bede, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon. This is what was taught at Catholic universities starting in the middle ages (historically these were religious institutions.) This idea was not introduced by the Reformation as you claimed earlier. It was the natural development of Catholic thought, occurring early in our history.
St. Augustine wrote about how foolish and spiritually dangerous it is to take a position that goes against reason. It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that this applies to flat earth.
Flat earth is not a Church teaching. Even you must realize that. What the ancient Hebrews believed, may be significant to Protestants doing their personal interpretations of Scripture, but is not relevant to Catholics. There is no good reason for you to insist on proclaiming an idea that is potentially harmful to souls. If you want to believe the earth is flat, go ahead. There is no dogma that says you should not. But please keep quiet about it.
I never said that the globe earth model was introduced by the reformation. It was furthered by Protestant reformers, freemasons, and deluded Catholics.Your exact words were " Catholics believed in a flat-earth before the Reformation Protestants, deluded Catholics and Freemasons got a foot in the door of science and changed what Catholics traditionally believed." This is simply not true. Catholics had stopped believing in a flat earth by 600, which is around a thousand years before you are claiming it happened. Furthermore you are saying that St. Albert the Great, Doctor of the Church and Patron of natural sciences, is a deluded Catholic, since he believed the earth is a globe.
Did the Church teach that the earth revolves around the sun, or was the idea condemned by the Church? I assume that you know the answer to this.That issue is more complicated and I would need to study it more before saying anything. It looks like you know you don't have a leg to stand on and want to change the subject.
Your exact words were " Catholics believed in a flat-earth before the Reformation Protestants, deluded Catholics and Freemasons got a foot in the door of science and changed what Catholics traditionally believed." This is simply not true. Catholics had stopped believing in a flat earth by 600, which is around a thousand years before you are claiming it happened. Furthermore you are saying that St. Albert the Great, Doctor of the Church and Patron of natural sciences, is a deluded Catholic, since he believed the earth is a globe.
That issue is more complicated and I would need to study it more before saying anything. It looks like you know you don't have a leg to stand on and want to change the subject.
Until someone can explain to me how this is a question of faith, this is just useless bickering. It's a scientific question. At least with Geocentrism, there were passages in the Bible that could be construed as supporting it. In fact, I am a Geocentrist. And there's certainly a pernicious side to Heliocentrism, an attempt to dethrone human beings as the pinnacle of creation and also to cast doubt upon creation itself. But I don't see it with flat earth.
I don't think it's just a question of science.
Catholic flat-earthers do see the attempt in modern science to view the world as being totally natural and without a known creator. Or, if there is a creator, he's more along the lines of the Freemasonic 'great architect of the universe,' who has created the world, but then just left us on our own to get along as well as possible. That's not the Catholic concept of our Creator, of course.
I have not studied the question of geo/heliocentrism enough to express an opinion. I like to know what I am talking about.
There's a reason why I bring up heliocentrism. Because Popes of the past have condemned heliocentrism. It may seem like I'm changing the subject, but I'm not. It has nothing to do with believing that I don't have a leg to stand on. That's your view.
Do you believe in heliocentrism? That the earth revolves around the sun? Because that belief has been condemned by Popes.
The deluded Catholics that I'm referring to are the ones who actively worked in scientific endeavors to push the globe earth and heliocentrism, which has led, in part to the problem with secular humanism that we see today. I'm not referring to saints who believed as such.
Flat earth is not a Church teaching. Even you must realize that. What the ancient Hebrews believed, may be significant to Protestants doing their personal interpretations of Scripture, but is not relevant to Catholics. There is no good reason for you to insist on proclaiming an idea that is potentially harmful to souls. If you want to believe the earth is flat, go ahead. There is no dogma that says you should not. But please keep quiet about it.
I have not studied the question of geo/heliocentrism enough to express an opinion. I like to know what I am talking about.
I have, however, looked into flat earthism. There is no reason why Catholics should not believe in a globe earth and no evidence that this belief promotes secular humanism. And it does not make sense to say that it is OK for Saints to believe it but bad when anyone else does.
You seem to be conflating flat earth with geocentrism, but you have not established any reason for doing this. At this point, it seems merely arbitrary.
I never said that the flat earth is Church teaching. You believe that the Ancient Hebrews have no relevance to our Catholic Faith? What about all of the Hebrew prophets and kings who the Church has viewed as a forerunner to Our Lord?I believe that people's personal interpretations of the Ancient Hebrews have no relevance to the Catholic Faith. People can see anything they want in Scripture. We need to approach it with the guidance of the Church or we will recreate the infinite nonsense of Protestants.
Are you aware that we are allowed to interpret Scripture literally, which includes the Old Testament? And as such, we are allowed to interpret Genesis literally? Which means that we can believe in a flat earth. The Church allows us to debate it, because she has not ruled on the shape of the earth. You don't have to believe in a flat earth. But I can, and will.
I believe that people's personal interpretations of the Ancient Hebrews have no relevance to the Catholic Faith. People can see anything they want in Scripture. We need to approach it with the guidance of the Church or we will recreate the infinite nonsense of Protestants.
I already told you that the Church allows your belief in flat earth. That does not make it prudent or helpful to talk about it. I am not sure what you think to gain by debating it. Do you like people telling you that you are stupid?
Such a silly and immature post, that it doesn't bear responding to. I'm going to keep talking about it. Get over it. If you cannot help but be rude, then I will not respond to you further.You seem attached to your opinion but unable to describe any benefits to debating it. Do you have a spiritual director or priest you could talk to about this. It does not sound very healthy.
But how does the possibility of the earth being a sphere undermine God as creator? Someone had to create the sphere. I don't get it. Geocentrism I can see. Flat Earth vs. Sphere? I don't see the philosophical ramifications of it. So long as this sphere is at the center of God's creation, what does it matter?
What's underneath this flat area? If you say hell, then what's underneath that? I have no problem with the notion of a grand universe that spreads out all around the earth.
I certainly keep an open mind about flat earth, but I have not seen any convincing evidence for it. As for Geocentrism, there's a LOT of compelling evidence in its favor. It almost seems as if Flat-Earthism is a distraction from the real issue of Geocentrism. It's easier to discredit Flat-Earthism and more people think you're nuts if you go there, so that even legitimate arguments in favor of Geocentrism are discredited ... when coming from the same people.
Secular humanism, with the current modern cosmology, teaches that we are just another planet in the universe, and although there's life here, there's probably life elsewhere. Current scientific cosmology rarely admits to a Creator. That's easier to do, when we're viewed as just another planet in the universe. Geocentrism does show that we are special by the fact that we are the at the center, and that the other planets revolve around the earth, but that doesn't go far enough.This sounds like you are adopting the view that the earth is flat, not because there is any good evidence that this is true, but because you see it as a way of opposing secular humanism. This is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
We need not imagine this contrafactual situation. There was virtually no authoritative teaching, magisterial or otherwise, to suggest that the earth was flat.
This matter does not need to be brought up. It does nothing to further the reign of Christ the King. On the contrary, it endangers souls.
Yes, in the early period of the Church some of the Church Fathers believed in a flat earth. The position of Catholics had changed by the time of Isidore of Seville. (around 600 AD). From that time on Christian thinkers all accepted the earth is a globe: Venerable Bede, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon. This is what was taught at Catholic universities starting in the middle ages (historically these were religious institutions.) This idea was not introduced by the Reformation as you claimed earlier. It was the natural development of Catholic thought, occurring early in our history.
St. Augustine wrote about how foolish and spiritually dangerous it is to take a position that goes against reason. It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that this applies to flat earth.
Flat earth is not a Church teaching. Even you must realize that. What the ancient Hebrews believed, may be significant to Protestants doing their personal interpretations of Scripture, but is not relevant to Catholics. There is no good reason for you to insist on proclaiming an idea that is potentially harmful to souls. If you want to believe the earth is flat, go ahead. There is no dogma that says you should not. But please keep quiet about it.
Until someone can explain to me how this is a question of faith, this is just useless bickering. It's a scientific question. At least with Geocentrism, there were passages in the Bible that could be construed as supporting it. In fact, I am a Geocentrist. And there's certainly a pernicious side to Heliocentrism, an attempt to dethrone human beings as the pinnacle of creation and also to cast doubt upon creation itself. But I don't see it with flat earth.
But how does the possibility of the earth being a sphere undermine God as creator? Someone had to create the sphere. I don't get it. Geocentrism I can see. Flat Earth vs. Sphere? I don't see the philosophical ramifications of it. So long as this sphere is at the center of God's creation, what does it matter?
What's underneath this flat area? If you say hell, then what's underneath that? I have no problem with the notion of a grand universe that spreads out all around the earth.
I certainly keep an open mind about flat earth, but I have not seen any convincing evidence for it. As for Geocentrism, there's a LOT of compelling evidence in its favor. It almost seems as if Flat-Earthism is a distraction from the real issue of Geocentrism. It's easier to discredit Flat-Earthism and more people think you're nuts if you go there, so that even legitimate arguments in favor of Geocentrism are discredited ... when coming from the same people.
I have not studied the question of geo/heliocentrism enough to express an opinion. I like to know what I am talking about.
I have, however, looked into flat earthism. There is no reason why Catholics should not believe in a globe earth and no evidence that this belief promotes secular humanism. And it does not make sense to say that it is OK for Saints to believe it but bad when anyone else does.
You seem to be conflating flat earth with geocentrism, but you have not established any reason for doing this. At this point, it seems merely arbitrary.
The earth moves at 900 mph.
But somehow my hair never goes out of place. Fascinating.
Thanks Coepernicus and Galileo. Thanks Freemasons for celebrating them in your lodges.
This sounds like you are adopting the view that the earth is flat, not because there is any good evidence that this is true, but because you see it as a way of opposing secular humanism. This is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
JaynekOf course it is possible to find quotes in support of the flat earth (although not all of those quotes actually did). In the early centuries of Christianity, opinions were divided on the subject. It was not until later centuries that Catholic thinkers reached a consensus that the earth was shaped like a sphere.
Read these quotes
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition
I came to flat earth because of the science. Because of the evidence. Some come from the other direction and that is fine.Neither science nor Tradition supports FE. What training did you have in science?
Both science and Tradition support the flat earth.
Actually believing lies, especially when the truth is in your face everyday is very dangerous and affects your salvation.This is exactly why you need to stop believing in FE.
The mind needs to be sane to receive supernatural truths well and have them settle.
Neither science nor tradition supports FE. As for Scripture, we should be guided by the words of Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus here (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html):
Science supports the flat earth.
Tradition supports flat earth.
Scripture makes much more sense when read through the flat earth lense.
...we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.and further on:
The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas.
The default position is the consensus held by Catholics (including St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas) for over a thousand years. The earth is shaped like a globe. And what do you mean it has been refuted that St. Thomas believed in a spherical earth? Anyone can read for himself what is written in the Summa.
Jaynek,
the default position is flat earth NOT globe earth.
The whole point of that St. Augustine quote is that it matters a great deal. By destroying the credibility of Christianity, people espousing FE can lead to the loss of salvation. He is saying that it is disgraceful and dangerous nonsense with eternal consequences.Are you claiming, the people who clearly see that the horizon is horizontal with no curve at all, but still choose to claim there is a curve, that these people are going to hell?
This matter does not need to be brought up. It does nothing to further the reign of Christ the King. On the contrary, it endangers souls.
You are claiming that the Church teaches something stupid. It makes the Church look stupid and it makes you look stupid. Then when we want to talk about important things pertaining to salvation, people aren't listening because they have already decided we are stupid.God created the flat earth. You calling God's creation stupid make you a damned heretic.
Flat earth is exactly the sort of stupid thing that St. Augustine was writing about.
Ladislaus,
Happy you keep an open mind. How do you explain that we can see objects beyond the horizon that we shouldn't see?
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t17-objects-over-the-horizon-proofs
I'll try to write more later about why globe earth/heliocentrism has promoted secular humanism.
Are you claiming, the people who clearly see that the horizon is horizontal with no curve at all, but still choose to claim there is a curve, that these people are going to hell?No I am saying that people who claim that flat earth is a teaching of the Church work towards destroying the credibility of the Church, causing an obstacle to salvation. If people think the Church is opposed to truth and reason (which is what teaching FE would imply), they will not be open to learning from her the truths necessary for salvation that only she possesses. Flat earthism imperils souls.
No I am saying that people who claim that flat earth is a teaching of the Church work towards destroying the credibility of the Church, causing an obstacle to salvation. If people think the Church is opposed to truth and reason (which is what teaching FE would imply), they will not be open to learning from her the truths necessary for salvation that only she possesses. Flat earthism imperils souls.
God created the flat earth. You calling God's creation stupid make you a damned heretic.God created the earth. He did not make it flat. The idea that it is flat is stupid.
I agree. But that was also my point about the promotion of wife-beating. People outside the Church and outside Traditional Catholicism would find it revolting and would be turned off to the faith as a result. As I said, let us pick and choose our battles in prudence.As you may recall, I agreed with you when you made that point.
No I am saying that people who claim that flat earth is a teaching of the Church work towards destroying the credibility of the Church, causing an obstacle to salvation. If people think the Church is opposed to truth and reason (which is what teaching FE would imply), they will not be open to learning from her the truths necessary for salvation that only she possesses. Flat earthism imperils souls.The heretical freemasonic globe earth belief is an obstacle to salvation. The globe belief, when God has clearly revealed to us that the earth is not a globe, is a direct attempted assault on God.
God created the earth. He did not make it flat. The idea that it is flat is stupid.If I post pictures of the flat earth horizon, God demands you be converted. Will you convert if I post pictures of showing the flat earth horizon?
The Church has never taught that the earth is flat, even in a non-definitive way. There are certainly no definitive statements that the earth is flat. Many Saints have taught that the earth is spherical. It is absurd to call me a heretic.
If I post pictures of the flat earth horizon, God demands you be converted. Will you convert if I post pictures of showing the flat earth horizon?No, because a picture of a flat horizon does not prove the earth is flat. God does not demand that I take a position that differs from the Venerable Bede, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great.
No, because a picture of a flat horizon does not prove the earth is flat. God does not demand that I take a position that differs from the Venerable Bede, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great.Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.
No, because a picture of a flat horizon does not prove the earth is flat. God does not demand that I take a position that differs from the Venerable Bede, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great.A horizontal line is not a curve. You are going to have to try harder that that if you are going to convince our God that He created a ball earth. :jester:
A horizontal line is not a curve. You are going to have to try harder that that if you are going to convince our God that He created a ball earth. :jester:God does not need to be convinced. He knows, since He is the one who created the earth in the shape of a globe.
The earth moves at 900 mph.
But somehow my hair never goes out of place. Fascinating.
Thanks Coepernicus and Galileo. Thanks Freemasons for celebrating them in your lodges.
Yes, it does. Freemasons like to portray the Church as opposed to science and reason. They must really appreciate how flat earthers help out with this.
I didn't know that Coepernicus and Galileo are celebrated in freemasonic lodges, but it makes sense.
Yes, it does. Freemasons like to portray the Church as opposed to science and reason. They must really appreciate how flat earthers help out with this.God science and God religion confirm flat earth is reality.
A horizontal line is not a curve. You are going to have to try harder that that if you are going to convince our God that He created a ball earth. :jester:
Agreed. The idea that God created a ball earth is ridiculous.I believe the Baal (ball) earth belief is an obstacle in the way of the restoration of the Catholic Church.
I believe the Baal (ball) earth belief is an obstacle in the way of the restoration of the Catholic Church.
Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.This is getting to be comical. How many bridges and tunnels projects have you been employed on? Someone said it on a youtube video...or typed someone out in a w/bigger font, bolded it and made it underlined so it had to be true. Or did they convince you with a really angry emoji?
After all, to most people, our world is just another ball hurtling through space around the sun, and the sun is supposedly 93,000,000 miles away. That, of course, is not what scripture tells us though.You are approaching Scripture like a Protestant Fundamentalist does. Catholics follow the teaching given by Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus.
I believe the Baal (ball) earth belief is an obstacle in the way of the restoration of the Catholic Church.Restoration to what? There has never been a time in the history of the Church in which Catholics as a group believed in FE. It was a matter under dispute in the earliest centuries and then the consensus formed that the earth is a sphere.
The heretical freemasonic globe earth belief is an obstacle to salvation. The globe belief, when God has clearly revealed to us that the earth is not a globe, is a direct attempted assault on God.
Of course it is possible to find quotes in support of the flat earth (although not all of those quotes actually did). In the early centuries of Christianity, opinions were divided on the subject. It was not until later centuries that Catholic thinkers reached a consensus that the earth was shaped like a sphere.
The default position is the consensus held by Catholics (including St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas) for over a thousand years. The earth is shaped like a globe. And what do you mean it has been refuted that St. Thomas believed in a spherical earth? Anyone can read for himself what is written in the Summa.
And how do you explain that one get to China from America by travelling west and going across the Pacific Ocean or one can get to China by travelling east and going across the Atlantic Ocean? Countless people have confirmed that the earth is not flat simply by their own personal travels.
Oh, I agree. As long as most of the people on the planet, ....
This is getting to be comical. How many bridges and tunnels projects have you been employed on? Someone said it on a youtube video...or typed someone out in a w/bigger font, bolded it and made it underlined so it had to be true. Or did they convince you with a really angry emoji?
Quote from: Truth is Eternal (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=47267.msg581283#msg581283) on Tue Nov 28 2017 09:42:39 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
If I post pictures of the flat earth horizon, God demands you be converted.
Quote from: Truth is Eternal (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=47267.msg581281#msg581281) on Tue Nov 28 2017 09:39:56 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
The heretical freemasonic globe earth belief is an obstacle to salvation. The globe belief, when God has clearly revealed to us that the earth is not a globe,
Quote from: Truth is Eternal (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=47240.msg580863#msg580863) on Sat Nov 25 2017 21:44:32 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)God created the flat earth. You just committed the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy. :really-mad2:
If Flat Earth was such a truth, and the Catholic Church's scientists and lay Catholic scientists have studied this for the last 600+ years, then why is there no plausible working model of the flat earth? None of the drawings posted to support flat earth work? Not one Cathoic Scholar had a theory that they doodled? So lets break this down. The 'freemasonic' science community have deceived the world for hundreds of years with their working models, mathematic equations, and calculations. And we are left with "Not-uh look at this youtube video"....and "God demands you be converted, You just committed the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy. :really-mad2:"
I am still awaiting an explanation about how a spherical earth does any harm to the faith.Baal (globe earth) worship/belief is Satanism.
I am still awaiting an explanation about how a spherical earth does any harm to the faith.
You assume like many a priori that the idea of a flat earth is absurd. How are we suppose to have a conversation with a person like that, who refuses to listen to what the other has to say?
If you reject a priori the proofs I provide then you have no right to say that science does not support the flat earth, when you have not even looked into it.
Did you just say planet!?
Naughty girl Meg!
you mean plane...
Baal (globe earth) worship/belief is Satanism.
It doesn't usually help your case to overstate things.
There are only two models in question. Flat or globe. Where the quotes attack the globe it can be assumed safely that the author thought the earth was flat.
So the quotes do support the thesis that wherever the Fathers spoke on the issue, the majority of them accepted the earth to be flat.
The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."Providentissiumus Deus (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
In that case, it is very clear (at least to me) that this is what Catholics taught, believed and practiced for most of our history. In those threads I am stating what I know to be true so I stand on it. But FE is not something taught or believed for most of our history. It is a myth from our enemies that Catholics widely believed FE. On the contrary, we reached a consensus that the earth is a globe well over a thousand years ago. In both cases, I am using research to identify the traditional belief. I am not open to going against the traditional belief of Catholics.
I have to say that I am saddened and disappointed in you. I cannot understand how you can support corporal discipline against all opposition, and yet Ladislaus is the one saying he is open to the flat earth! Topsy-turvy.
I also notice that you glossed over the proofs I provided. You dodged the question of curvature. You assume like many a priori that the idea of a flat earth is absurd. How are we suppose to have a conversation with a person like that, who refuses to listen to what the other has to say?My background is in theology and history, so those are the arguments that I can best follow. I am not sure that I would catch errors made in claims about science, so I don't want to talk about science. Whenever I do want to comment about science I normally run it by my husband (who has an excellent science background) to make sure I've gotten it right. He says that science does not support a flat earth so I am not open to thinking otherwise.
If you reject a priori the proofs I provide then you have no right to say that science does not support the flat earth, when you have not even looked into it.
The problem with web forums is that once a person has dug their heals in and stated something publically, they are unlikely to change their mind. Try following Ladislaus' example of openess ( I can't believe I am saying this) and take a step back for a moment and consider for one moment that you might not be right all the time.
Baal (globe earth) worship/belief is Satanism.TiE, are you here to make Catholics appear grossly ignorant?
Even if everyone believed in FE for a certain period of time in Church history, that doesn't rise to the level of Magisterium, much less a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.The magisterium teaches doctrine, not science, so the point you make is irrelevant.
St. Thomas on the globe earth http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t27-faqs-part-10
But St. Thomas argues against it!This is what St Thomas wrote:
St. Thomas does no such thing. In a question on habits (I-II, Q54, art 2), he makes reference to Aristotle having "proven" that the Earth was round. His wording can make it seem like he agrees especially if you come at it presupposing the Earth to be round, but he does not state clearly is own opinion on the matter. He was simply using it to make another general point (http://www.militaryclothing.com/Desert-Collar-Rank-O-10-4-Star-General-Point-to-Point-1-Pair.aspx).
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.I got my husband to explain this to me. He says a flat horizon 360 degrees around the observer is what we should expect if the earth is a sphere. It looks like a straight line because all the points are an equal distance from the observer. The higher the point of observation the farther one can see before the curvature of the sphere blocks ones vision. This is why ships would have a crowsnest at as high a point as possible to station their lookout.
I really do not mean to sound disrespectful, but please can someone explain to me, as if I was 5, what does it matter if the earth is a flat surface or a globe, to the purpose of my salvation?
I got my husband to explain this to me. He says a flat horizon 360 degrees around the observer is what we should expect if the earth is a sphere. It looks like a straight line because all the points are an equal distance from the observer. The higher the point of observation the farther one can see before the curvature of the sphere blocks ones vision. This is why ships would have a crowsnest at as high a point as possible to station their lookout.
It the earth were flat there would not be a horizon. Instead of a discrete line, one would see the distance gradually getting dimmer as one's vision failed.
I don't understand how the Flat Earth model is consistent with the fact that, during part of the year, you have 24 hours of daylight at Antarctica and extremely long days not far from Antarctica. If the sun is moving around in a circle along the edges of this ice wall, you wouldn't have 24 hours of daylight. Obviously the math would work at the North Pole and in the northern regions, but it doesn't make sense to me in the South.
https://steemit.com/science/@kerriknox/24-hour-sunlight-in-antarctica-is-impossible-on-a-flat-earth-2-in-the-flat-earth-is-impossible-series
TiE, are you here to make Catholics appear grossly ignorant?Freemasonic globe earthers make Catholics look ignorant. I am on a mission to continue to work toward the restoration of the Catholic church. Freemasonic globe earthers have no place in the Catholic church. Baal (globe worship/belief) is Satanism.
Baal has nothing to do with globe earth.
Etymology of Baal:
From Late Latin Baal (as in the Vulgate) and Ancient Greek Βάαλ (Báal), from Hebrew בעל (Ba‘al, "Baal", and ba‘al, "lord, husband"), from Proto-Semitic *baʿl- (“owner, lord, husband”).
That was the same question I had. Someone answered that flat earth essentially makes us feel closer to God than if we were a tiny spot in some vast universe. Well, we really are tiny and insignificant compared to God. When I reflect on the vastness of the universe and how awesome and impressive are God's works, that He created all this with little effort, it only increases my sense of His greatness and His power. Now, Geocentrism IMO is more important in terms of our perception of God and creation.Thank you. Respect to Geocentrism, I am inclined to believe that the earth is in fact at the center of the universe and I can see why this would be of more importance.
Only if the entire flat earth were of equal elevation. And the horizon could be the point of vision failure even in places where there aren't elevated geographical features (such as the ocean).Vision failure happens gradually. One sees less and less clearly at greater distance. It would not cause the sharp line of horizon that one observes at sea. My husband says there is a correlation between cultures that develop a spherical understanding of the the earth and those that have sea-faring abilities because oceans have the conditions that allow people to easily observe phenomena which show the earth is a globe.
No plausible working model???
You can't find what you are not looking for my friend...
you want to talk about flights?
Try this on for size....
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t97-flights-from-nz-to-a-america
Freemasonic globe earthers make Catholics look ignorant. I am on a mission to continue to work toward the restoration of the Catholic church. Freemasonic globe earthers have no place in the Catholic church. Baal (globe worship/belief) is Satanism.
Quote from: Truth is Eternal (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=47267.msg581281#msg581281) on Tue Nov 28 2017 09:39:56 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
The heretical freemasonic globe earth belief is an obstacle to salvation. The globe belief, when God has clearly revealed to us that the earth is not a globe, is a direct attempted assault on God.
Quote from: Truth is Eternal (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/homemade-rocket-just-hit-speedbump/msg580863/#msg580863) on Sat Nov 25 2017 21:44:32 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)God created the flat earth. You just committed the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/really-mad2.gif)
I really do not mean to sound disrespectful, but please can someone explain to me, as if I was 5, what does it matter if the earth is a flat surface or a globe, to the purpose of my salvation?
That was the same question I had. Someone answered that flat earth essentially makes us feel closer to God than if we were a tiny spot in some vast universe. Well, we really are tiny and insignificant compared to God. When I reflect on the vastness of the universe and how awesome and impressive are God's works, that He created all this with little effort, it only increases my sense of His greatness and His power. Now, Geocentrism IMO is more important in terms of our perception of God and creation.
Freemasonic globe earthers make Catholics look ignorant. I am on a mission to continue to work toward the restoration of the Catholic church. Freemasonic globe earthers have no place in the Catholic church. Baal (globe worship/belief) is Satanism.
I can see how geocentrism can make more sense. However....in geocentrism, the sun is still considered to be 93,000,000 miles away. How does an object such as the sun rotate around the earth when it's so far away, and still provide light and warmth?
On a flat earth, the sun is much smaller and rotates above the earth. It makes more sense to me.
Because it's bigger and generates more heat than in the flat earth model.
Just to be clear, flat earth is also geocentric.
Ladislaus saying that he is overstating is being generousI have God on my side. God created the flat earth. GOD DID NOT CREATE GLOBE EARTHERS FREEMASONIC WORLDVIEW.
Kiwiboy saying that he is just zealous is understating.
Does this seem like a rational person at all?
Is there one traditional Catholic priest in the world that preaches flat earth is necessary for salvation? To get to heaven your soul must be in the state of grace and have a firm belief that the earth is flat....Is there any priest/religious/visionary/doctor/pope anybody alive or dead that said that have said that believing that the earth is a globe is Satanism? I don't remember that blasphemy being an unforgivable sin in my Catechism. In the dozen encyclicals over the last 200+ years that spoke against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, was there a single one that said that the globe was a masonic deception?
I'm all for the debating, but this is the level of crazy conspiracy of false religious fervor that turns people minds off. It doesn't serve flat earth's agenda to allow this to continue. This is the reason why this area of the forum is referred to as the ghetto of Cath Info.
I have God on my side. God created the flat earth. GOD DID NOT CREATE GLOBE EARTHERS FREEMASONIC WORLDVIEW.
Exactly right.I am just so sick and tired of Catholics' who believe NASA more than the Catholic Church and the Bible. :facepalm:
I am just so sick and tired of Catholics' who believe NASA more than the Catholic Church and the Bible. :facepalm:
I have God on my side. God created the flat earth. GOD DID NOT CREATE GLOBE EARTHERS FREEMASONIC WORLDVIEW.
I am just so sick and tired of Catholics' who believe NASA more than the Catholic Church and the Bible. :facepalm:So I ask again.....
You make the most outrageous claims....I list the quotes and your reply is....So I ask again.....
Is there one traditional Catholic priest in the world that preaches flat earth is necessary for salvation? Is there any priest/religious/visionary/doctor/pope anybody alive or dead that said that have said that believing that the earth is a globe is Satanism? I don't remember that blasphemy being an unforgivable sin in my Catechism. In the dozen encyclicals over the last 200+ years that spoke against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, was there a single one that said that the globe was a masonic deception?
I am just so sick and tired of Catholics' who believe NASA more than the Catholic Church and the Bible. :facepalm:
This question is off-topic, but would you mind explaining your username?
"RoughAshlar" is a freemasonic term, correct? Why then would you be using such a name?
In operative Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the rough ashlar represents a rough, unprepared or undressed stone. In speculative Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, a rough ashlar is an allegory to the uninitiated Freemason prior to his discovering enlightenment.
I have God on my side. God created the flat earth. GOD DID NOT CREATE GLOBE EARTHERS FREEMASONIC WORLDVIEW.
I have God on my side. God created the flat earth. GOD DID NOT CREATE GLOBE EARTHERS FREEMASONIC WORLDVIEW.Many Catholic Saints and the majority of Catholics throughout history believed the earth is a globe. The Catholic consensus on a globe shaped earth preceded the existence of Freemasons by many centuries.
I think that Catholics today don't even realize how they've been influenced by Freemaonic ideals, and how the freemasons has basically won.....for now.Only some of the early Church Fathers believed in a flat earth. They disagreed on this question. Virtually all Catholics after that agree that the earth is a globe.
Our Lady will crush the serpents head, but until then, we're under the subjection of the Freemasons. Trad Catholics rightly see the Jєωιѕн conspiracy, but they don't want to see the great damage that Freemasons have done. And part of the freemasonic conspiracy is to make us perceive a conception of the universe that opposes Scripture and the early Church Fathers.
That's a valid question. Although one rebuttal of Flat Earth Theory holds that Freemasons have been the ones promoting Flat Earth.
Catholics have been taught not to use Scripture to answer questions of science. We use it as a guide to faith and morals. Your approach to Scripture belongs to a Protestant Fundamentalist, not a Catholic.
That's doesn't mean that I can't ask the question.
Actually, I've been wondering for awhile as to why this forum member would use the name of "RoughAshlar," since it's basically a freemasonic term. I've been thinking of asking him why, and this seemed like a good time to do so.
Maybe there's a reasonable explanation as to why he's using that name, though I can't really think of one.
Right. I said that it was a VALID question. I too am a bit curious about his choice of screen name.
Although one rebuttal of Flat Earth Theory holds that Freemasons have been the ones promoting Flat Earth.That is by far more plausible than Meg's postion. Catholics reached a consensus on a spherical earth after the period of the Early Church Fathers. It was taught in Catholic universities and believed by all educated Catholics centuries before Freemasons came into being.
Well, sometimes there is overlap between faith and science. So, for instance, the Church authorities who condemned heliocentrism did so based on the Bible and the Church Fathers.When this overlap happens, we follow the guidance of Church authorities. Catholics should not be trying to answer questions of science (or anything else really) by their own personal interpretations of Scripture. And that is exactly what some Flat Earthers are doing.
Freemasonic globe earthers have no place in the Catholic church. Baal (globe worship/belief) is Satanism.
Late Antiquity
Ampelius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Ampelius), C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcidius)halcidius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcidius), Macrobius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobius), Martianus Capella (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martianus_Capella), Basil of Caesarea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Caesarea), Ambrose of Milan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose), Aurelius Augustinus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelius_Augustinus), Paulus Orosius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulus_Orosius), Jordanes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes), Cassiodorus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiodorus), Boethius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boethius), Visigoth king Sisebut
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisebut)Early Middle Ages
Isidore of Seville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville), Beda Venerabilis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beda_Venerabilis), Theodulf of Orléans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodulf_of_Orl%C3%A9ans), Vergilius of Salzburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergilius_of_Salzburg), Irish monk Dicuil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicuil), Rabanus Maurus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabanus_Maurus), King Alfred of England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great), Remigius of Auxerre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigius_of_Auxerre), Johannes Scotus Eriugena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Scotus_Eriugena), Leo of Naples (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_von_Neapel) (in German), Gerbert d’Aurillac (Pope Sylvester II) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II).
High Middle Ages
Notker the German of Sankt-Gallen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notker_Teutonicus), Hermann of Reichenau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_of_Reichenau), Hildegard von Bingen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_von_Bingen), Petrus Abaelardus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Abaelardus), Honorius Augustodunensis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorius_Augustodunensis), Gautier de Metz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautier_de_Metz), Adam of Bremen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_of_Bremen), Albertus Magnus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus), Thomas Aquinas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas), Berthold of Regensburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berthold_of_Regensburg), Guillaume de Conches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_de_Conches), Philippe de Thaon (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_de_Thaon) (in French), Abu-Idrisi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Idrisi), Bernardus Silvestris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardus_Silvestris), Petrus Comestor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Comestor), Thierry de Chartres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_de_Chartres), Gautier de Châtillon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautier_de_Ch%C3%A2tillon), Alexander Neckam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Neckam), Alain de Lille (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Lille), Averroes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes), Snorri Sturluson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorri_Sturluson), Moshe ben Maimon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_ben_Maimon), Lambert of Saint-Omer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_of_Saint-Omer), Gervasius of Tilbury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gervasius_of_Tilbury), Robert Grosseteste (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste), Johannes de Sacrobosco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_de_Sacrobosco), Thomas de Cantimpré (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_de_Cantimpr%C3%A9), Peire de Corbian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peire_de_Corbian), Vincent de Beauvais (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_de_Beauvais), Robertus Anglicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertus_Anglicus), Juan Gil de Zámora (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Gil_de_Zamora) (in Spanish), Ristoro d'Arezzo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ristoro_d%27Arezzo), Roger Bacon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon), Jean de Meung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Meung), Brunetto Latini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunetto_Latini), Alfonso X of Castile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_X_of_Castile).
Late Middle Ages
Marco Polo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo), Dante Alighieri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri), Meister Eckhart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart), Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_II), Perot de Garbalei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perot_de_Garbalei) (divisiones mundi), Cecco d'Ascoli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecco_d%27Ascoli), Fazio degli Uberti (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazio_degli_Uberti) (in Italian), Levi ben Gershon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_ben_Gershon), Konrad of Megenberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_of_Megenberg), Nicole Oresme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Oresme), Petrus Aliacensis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Aliacensis), Alfonso de la Torre (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_de_la_Torre) (in German), Toscanelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_dal_Pozzo_Toscanelli), Brochard the German (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brochard_der_Deutsche) (in German), Jean de Mandeville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehan_de_Mandeville), Christine de Pizan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_de_Pizan), Geoffrey Chaucer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Chaucer), William Caxton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Caxton), Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim), Christopher Columbus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus).
Until someone can explain to me how this is a question of faith, this is just useless bickering. It's a scientific question. At least with Geocentrism, there were passages in the Bible that could be construed as supporting it. In fact, I am a Geocentrist. And there's certainly a pernicious side to Heliocentrism, an attempt to dethrone human beings as the pinnacle of creation and also to cast doubt upon creation itself. But I don't see it with flat earth.Fascinating that there are those who say earth is geocentric but not flat. What makes you believe earth is round? What proof do you have?
What makes you believe earth is round? What proof do you have?Here is a video explaining what my husband was telling me about the horizon proves that the earth is a globe:
Jaynek,Thank you for this. I especially liked the St Basil one at the end:
You might also find useful a thread in the Library section I started a while ago called Church Fathers Did Not Condemn Globe Earth. (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/church-fathers-did-not-condemn-flat-earth/) The first and last quotes are particularly good for refuting those who try to prove the shape of the Earth and Creation using the Fathers and Holy Scripture, and claim Catholics are heretics for disbelieving in the flat Earth theory because they claim it's Dogma.
AES
It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.”I could see how it was echoed in Providentissimus Deus. It just shows how deeply rooted Pope Leo XIII's teaching on Scripture was rooted in the tradition of the Church.
Here is a video explaining what my husband was telling me about the horizon proves that the earth is a globe:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hecpmnkyCyw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hecpmnkyCyw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs)
Fascinating that there are those who say earth is geocentric but not flat. What makes you believe earth is round? What proof do you have?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjvtmzbEgm8&t=14s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjvtmzbEgm8&t=14s)
Well, it's the universe that's geocentric. I believe that all the observations and the math make more sense for a spherical earth ... though I continue to examine evidence. I'd prefer not to go into a 10-page post here discussing the entire subject.The universe cannot be geo. Geo refers to earth. Geocentric means earth centered, so the universe has little to do with the term except that it means the sun and stars move, not the earth. You asked earlier: But how does the possibility of the earth being a sphere undermine God as creator? Someone had to create the sphere. I don't get it. Geocentrism I can see. Flat Earth vs. Sphere? I don't see the philosophical ramifications of it. So long as this sphere is at the center of God's creation, what does it matter?
The universe cannot be geo. Geo refers to earth. Geocentric means earth centered, so the universe has little to do with the term except that it means the sun and stars move, not the earth.
Firstly, it matters in one sense because modern pagan science teaches in every classroom around the world a heliocentric moving earth ball to the exclusion of flat stationary earth. You say you believe earth is geocentric not heliocentric. So moderns are lying about stationary sun and moving earth, at least.
If we live on a ball, the word up doesn't mean up, as above, but it means out toward space in every direction... including down. In other words, people live in contradiction to what is, by what they believe to be true...and that is based on their relative thinking, produced by their living on a ball.
If the universe is geocentric, this means that the earth is the center of the universe. Not only do I believe the earth to be stationary, but I believe that it's located at the center of the universe.That's good. But why do you believe it is a ball? Scripture has descriptions of earth being flat, covered by a dome above earth, with water above the dome. It describes earth as having pillars on which it is founded, never to be moved. That earth has four corners. With information from Cosmas of Indiocopleustes (based on Moses, the great cosmographer) who says earth is shaped like a Church or "tabernacle" with pillars and a dome. Scripture says earth stands out like a wax seal stamp, with edges. And describes: As far as East is from West is as far as God removed our transgressions from us, etc. All this and more scripture is distinctly describing a flat geocentric earth, as well as earth being stationary, with the sun moving around the earth. What in scripture suggests earth is a ball, let alone moving? Does it not stand to reason that those who were responsible for undermining Church teaching about moving earth have lied about it being a ball? How does it make sense that water surface curves around the outside of earth, but such a phenomena cannot be duplicated on a smaller level? Water is level in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house, in the great lakes... But the ocean surface curves? Seriously? How is it that people say boats disappear over the curve, yet a camera with a decent lens proves the boat only disappeared into the atmosphere unrecognizable to the nake eye, yet remains visible well beyond any curve commensurate with a 25,000 mile ball with assistance? How is it that the horizon rises to the level of the eye no matter how high one travels up? Ever notice when you fly, the horizon is always at eye level. That is impossible if earth is a ball. It would fall away from the eye as one rose up. Reasonable questions answered reasonably prove scripture was telling us something very important about earth. Consider these Fathers and Saints who were flat earthers: Moses, Enoch, Augustine, Cosmas, Chrystostom, Severian, Methodius, Lactanctius, and many more. While a few saints had seemingly imbibed the ball notion along the way, not one taught it in any way. Not one saint taught or explained that earth is a ball, or a moving ball. The others however, give clear scriptural reasons for earth being flat and some elaborate on it extensively with the most beautiful, holy, Catholic expressions of reason. No need to take my word, keep researching.
Interesting, but I am not particularly disturbed the notion that up might be a different direction depending on where you're at on the earth.Reality affects how we discern. If telemetry is off, we aren't going to get where we're going. You say it doesn't bother you. So, does it bother you that on a ball earth Jesus rose for some and descended relative to those on the opposite side of the ball? That is a contradiction. I do not have the quote any more, so forgive me for using it, but I saw the quote said by a Pope that Heliocentrism/Copernicanism was a denial of the Incarnation. Given the contradictions, I can see why. Since planet spheres were introduced by Copernicus, a rebel satanist, I think by that alone, we have a smoking gun. But there's so much more...
That's good. But why do you believe it is a ball? Scripture has descriptions of earth being flat, covered by a dome above earth, with water above the dome. It describes earth as having pillars on which it is founded, never to be moved. That earth has four corners. With information from Cosmas of Indiocopleustes (based on Moses, the great cosmographer) who says earth is shaped like a Church or "tabernacle" with pillars and a dome. Scripture says earth stands out like a wax seal stamp, with edges. And describes: As far as East is from West is as far as God removed our transgressions from us, etc. All this and more scripture is distinctly describing a flat geocentric earth, as well as earth being stationary, with the sun moving around the earth. What in scripture suggests earth is a ball, let alone moving? Does it not stand to reason that those who were responsible for undermining Church teaching about moving earth have lied about it being a ball? How does it make sense that water surface curves around the outside of earth, but such a phenomena cannot be duplicated on a smaller level? Water is level in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house, in the great lakes... But the ocean surface curves? Seriously? How is it that people say boats disappear over the curve, yet a camera with a decent lens proves the boat only disappeared into the atmosphere unrecognizable to the nake eye, yet remains visible well beyond any curve commensurate with a 25,000 mile ball with assistance? How is it that the horizon rises to the level of the eye no matter how high one travels up? Ever notice when you fly, the horizon is always at eye level. That is impossible if earth is a ball. It would fall away from the eye as one rose up. Reasonable questions answered reasonably prove scripture was telling us something very important about earth. Consider these Fathers and Saints who were flat earthers: Moses, Enoch, Augustine, Cosmas, Chrystostom, Severian, Methodius, Lactanctius, and many more. While a few saints had seemingly imbibed the ball notion along the way, not one taught it in any way. Not one saint taught or explained that earth is a ball, or a moving ball. The others however, give clear scriptural reasons for earth being flat and some elaborate on it extensively with the most beautiful, holy, Catholic expressions of reason. No need to take my word, keep researching.Another Flat Earther who ignores Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.
Another Flat Earther who ignores Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.Why do you disparage me, referring to me as a Flat Earther as though it were the stupiest thing ever? Do you realize that the saints, Fathers, Doctors, and ancients like Moses and Enoch taught earth is flat and stationary? And that pagan Satan worshipers like Eratosthenes, Pythagoras, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Sagan and NASA teach earth is a moving ball? I wasn't the first to interpret scripture describing a flat earth (which it clearly does in dozens of ways). Cosmas of Indiocopleustes, a Catholic monk, wrote a book in the sixth century describing his arguments against the pagans who brazenly taught moving ball earth. You can read his book for free online. Its called Christian Topography. And St. Robert Bellarmine uses scripture to prove Galileo was wrong. The notion that stars are worlds/planets was foisted on people by a demon worshiper, Copernicus.
Geocentrism addresses this without the need to posit a flat earth.This is your perception, but it isn't factual. Observe in my last post, that Copernicus is responsible for turning earth into a sphere/planet.
Why do you disparage me, referring to me as a Flat Earther as though it were the stupiest thing ever? Do you realize that the saints, Fathers, Doctors, and ancients like Moses and Enoch taught earth is flat and stationary?I am referring to you as a Flat Earther because you believe the earth is flat. It did not occur to me that you would take it as a term of disparagement. I was under the impression that some of you used this term about yourselves. What is a neutral term for referring to the proponents of a flat earth?
Observe in my last post, that Copernicus is responsible for turning earth into a sphere/planet.Copernicus lived in the 15th century. Catholics had believed in a spherical earth for many centuries before he was born. Among them were St Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas.
I am referring to you as a Flat Earther because you believe the earth is flat. It did not occur to me that you would take it as a term of disparagement. I was under the impression that some of you used this term about yourselves. What is a neutral term for referring to the proponents of a flat earth?I'm wondering how it didn't occur to you that I would take it as a term of disparagement when you said: Flat Earther who ignores Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.
As I have said, there was never a consensus among Catholics that the earth was flat. It was an opinion of some of the Early Church Fathers. Others disagreed. After that time, a consensus develop that the earth is a globe and that has been the view of Catholics (including Saints, Doctors, and popes) for most of our history.
Copernicus lived in the 15th century. Catholics had believed in a spherical earth for many centuries before he was born. Among them were St Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas.
I'm wondering how it didn't occur to you that I would take it as a term of disparagement when you said: Flat Earther who ignores Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.I am not sure what better term to use to express that you believe in a flat earth and you are ignoring the Church teaching on Scripture. In Providentissimus Deus Pope Leo XIII wrote:
As if being flat earth means I ignore teachings on how to understand scripture. I understood exactly what you were saying.
In fact, in understanding scripture we find the literal sense was long ago underscored by St. Thomas Aquinas in his recognition that "all the senses are founded on one—the literal—from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory.”
To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.This encyclical is a magisterial teaching. We do not get to ignore it because of something written by St. Thomas. I have the greatest respect for him, but he does not replace the magisterial teaching that Scripture is not intended to teach matters of natural science. You pay no attention at all to this teaching and write things like:
So, when scripture says: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. - Genesis 1:6 andAny Catholic who thinks that Scripture is a flat earth book must be unaware of the teaching in Providentissimus Deus. Here is the link so you can read it and think about it: http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. - Psalms 148:4
And when scripture says: "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" Is. 40:22
And scripture says: Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain. - Psalms 104:2
So when the literal sense of scripture denies pagan notion of outer space above earth, but tells us there's water above the dome, we better believe it. And when it describes the heavens like a tent, which could never encompass a ball, but the literal sense would be the common notion of a tent, then we better believe it. And when it says the heavens are stretched like a curtain, something also incompatible with a ball, then we better believe it.
But again, I was not the first, or only Catholic to recognize that scripture is a flat earth book. This is a fraction of the flat earth references in scripture. And interestingly, NOT ONE scripture reference is reasonably compatible with a ball.
This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. No less earnestly do We inculcate obedience at the present day to the counsels and exhortations which he, in his day, so wisely enjoined.I suggest that you read the entire encyclical since your misunderstanding may be due to lack of context: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html)
St. Albert and St. Thomas neither taught or expounded on spherical earth.St. Thomas obviously believed it and took it for granted that everyone else did. There is no reason he would have been teaching about natural science since this was not his field. It was, however, that of St. Albert. I am unable to find an English translation of what St. Albert wrote but here it is in Latin:
Incipientes igiter breviter describere orbem, repetimus quae dicta sunt, quod omnes erant illi qui habitationem orbis rotundam esse contendunt. Et licet Aristoteles formaverit eam in circulo non fecit hoc ideo quod velit habitationem rotundam sed ut in ea signet quattuor puncta Orientis and Occidentis et Aquilonis et Meridiei.That looks to me like he is teaching a spherical earth but I am hoping that someone else will translate this so you won't have to rely on me.
St. Thomas obviously believed it and took it for granted that everyone else did. There is no reason he would have been teaching about natural science since this was not his field. It was, however, that of St. Albert. I am unable to find an English translation of what St. Albert wrote but here it is in Latin:Even the Google translator shows St Thomas isn't saying earth was round but that people believed it was round. But besides that, I've provided many quotes yet you have not responded. I explained a lot of things, but you never addressed any of them with so much as a why or how. Then you send me this passing reference that doesn't apply. What do you have against flat earth? How can you learn what the Church is teaching if your so dead set against it? Shouldn't you delve a little deeper before making up your mind?
That looks to me like he is teaching a spherical earth but I am hoping that someone else will translate this so you won't have to rely on me.
Even the Google translator shows St Thomas isn't saying earth was round but that people believed it was round. But besides that, I've provided many quotes yet you have not responded. I explained a lot of things, but you never addressed any of them with so much as a why or how. Then you send me this passing reference that doesn't apply. What do you have against flat earth? How can you learn what the Church is teaching of your so dead set against it? Shouldn't you delve a little deeper before making up your mind?Google translate produces something incomprehensible. One cannot base any conclusions on it.
I am not sure what better term to use to express that you believe in a flat earth and you are ignoring the Church teaching on Scripture. In Providentissimus Deus Pope Leo XIII wrote:Scripture has ALREADY been interpreted by Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Ancients and they agree it is saying earth is flat. As I said before, St. John Chrysostom, Bishop Severian, Lactanctius, Methodius, St. Jerome, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Methodius, Enoch, Moses and many great Fathers and Doctors of the Church have already not only weighed in, but detailed so much on the subject, yet you ignore the quotes I've provided only to say that my literal interpretation is the problem. My interpretation is based on the greats that have written so beautifully on the subject. Further, the Church has been clear about Copernicanism which She soundly condemned in 1633.
This encyclical is a magisterial teaching. We do not get to ignore it because of something written by St. Thomas. I have the greatest respect for him, but he does not replace the magisterial teaching that Scripture is not intended to teach matters of natural science. You pay no attention at all to this teaching and write things like:
Any Catholic who thinks that Scripture is a flat earth book must be unaware of the teaching in Providentissimus Deus. Here is the link so you can read it and think about it: http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
I see that you quoted Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu to justify your literal interpretation of these passages. You have badly misunderstood what was meant by his exhortation to "discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal." It was written to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Providentissimus Deus and reiterates the teaching about not using Scripture for natural science:
I suggest that you read the entire encyclical since your misunderstanding may be due to lack of context: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html)
That's good. But why do you believe it is a ball? Scripture has descriptions of earth being flat, covered by a dome above earth, with water above the dome. It describes earth as having pillars on which it is founded, never to be moved. That earth has four corners.
What in scripture suggests earth is a ball, let alone moving?
Scripture has ALREADY been interpreted by Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Ancients and they agree it is saying earth is flat. As I said before, St. John Chrysostom, Bishop Severian, Lactanctius, Methodius, St. Jerome, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Methodius, Enoch, Moses and many great Fathers and Doctors of the Church have already not only weighed in, but detailed so much on the subject, yet you ignore the quotes I've provided only to say that my literal interpretation is the problem. My interpretation is based on the greats that have written so beautifully on the subject. Further, the Church has been clear about Copernicanism which She soundly condemned in 1633.No they do not agree. You have created an illusion of agreement by cherry picking quotes. It was at first a matter under debate and then, after the first few centuries, virtually all Catholics accepted that the earth is spherical. This is a tradition that is more than a thousand years old.
There are no scientific errors in Scripture. Nevertheless, as I just mentioned with movement, words and phrases need to be understood properly and other words and phrases could be used metaphorically for lack of a precise scientific vocabulary. Even in the New Testament you start to see certain common words (such as "presbyter") become technical theological words. Same thing in the Old Testament, and it's certain that some common words were used in lieu of scientific concepts. So you have to be very careful in what you mean by "literal" interpretation of Scripture.See! This is how a Catholic understands Scripture, following the magisterial teaching on the subject.
Google translate produces something incomprehensible. One cannot base any conclusions on it.Opinions of some Catholics might have been split, but the teachings of the ancient Catholic authorities were not split. There are exactly zero teachings on the ball earth from any ancient Catholic authority. Literally zero teachings or explanations about a ball earth. Conversely, there are plenty of teachings from them regarding flat earth. It has always been against Church teaching to believe there are anti-podes, people walking around on the opposite side of the earth. The Church (based on the book of Ezekiel) also teaches that Jerusalem is in the middle of the earth. St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's center; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Poe Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.
Your quotes from the Early Church Fathers show that, as I have said, opinion among Catholics was split during that time. Your quotes from Scripture show that you do not take a Catholic approach to Scripture. Is there any reason for me to go through them one by one.
What I have against flat earth is that it goes against what Catholics have believed for most of our history. You are the one who needs to learn what the Church is teaching and is dead set against it.
Could you please cite the Scripture that says the earth is flat? As for the dome over the earth, that could be understood as the atmosphere, taken metaphorically, or else some (typically Protestant) scientists posit the existence of a water canopy above the atmosphere that, when it collapsed, led to the Great Flood. With regard to the "four corners", does this mean your vision of Flat Earth is rectangular (vs. round)?There is no passage that says earth is flat. But neither are there passages that say Mary was conceived Immaculate. That doesn't mean it isn't there.
So far, as I understand it, the math of planetary movement, the movement of the sun and moon, and the change of seasons makes more sense as a sphere vs. flat. But I'm still studying.
Could you please cite the Scripture that says the earth is flat? As for the dome over the earth, that could be understood as the atmosphere, taken metaphorically, or else some (typically Protestant) scientists posit the existence of a water canopy above the atmosphere that, when it collapsed, led to the Great Flood. With regard to the "four corners", does this mean your vision of Flat Earth is rectangular (vs. round)?It is unlikely that the Genesis passage could be understood metaphorically. It reads:
So far, as I understand it, the math of planetary movement, the movement of the sun and moon, and the change of seasons makes more sense as a sphere vs. flat. But I'm still studying.
It is unlikely that the Genesis passage could be understood metaphorically.Footnote from the Douay Rheims:
No they do not agree. You have created an illusion of agreement by cherry picking quotes. It was at first a matter under debate and then, after the first few centuries, virtually all Catholics accepted that the earth is spherical. This is a tradition that is more than a thousand years old.Prove Catholic authorities accepted earth was spherical. The laity too. Not that they count.
Your literal interpretation is directly opposed to two papal encyclicals on how to understand Scripture, no matter who you think you are getting it from.
Footnote from the Douay Rheims:Yes, the footnotes agree yet do not fully explain that the firmament is the hard glass like divider that separates the water above from the water below
[6] "A firmament": By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
When did I say that I believed the earth was moving? Even then, if Scripture says that the "sun moved", well, movement is a relative term. So, indeed, from our perspective, the sun moved. Movement is relative to a specific frame of reference.You didn't say the earth was moving. I added it because it is part of the heliocentric model. As far as the sun moving being relative, you make my case about relativity. You're saying: either it does, or it doesn't, or it kind of does, but we're not sure, everything's relative, frame of reference, etc. You're not being precise but relative, so there is no answer. Does the sun move or not? Either it does or it doesn't, despite frame of reference or any other convoluted nonsense pagan science has forced us to imbibe. Thankfully, we can be sure the sun moves because the Church has spoken through the Holy Office in 1633:
There are no scientific errors in Scripture. Nevertheless, as I just mentioned with movement, words and phrases need to be understood properly and other words and phrases could be used metaphorically for lack of a precise scientific vocabulary. Even in the New Testament you start to see certain common words (such as "presbyter") become technical theological words. Same thing in the Old Testament, and it's certain that some common words were used in lieu of scientific concepts. So you have to be very careful in what you mean by "literal" interpretation of Scripture.I agree. I am always careful with scripture. As I've stated before, the Popes, Fathers and saints precede me in force regarding this matter. But further, it is isn't really possible to correctly interpret scripture contrary to the literal interpretation. While its heights soar beyond all human understanding, it does not contradict itself, nor is it absurdly contrary, which is what it would be if its descriptions of earth were superimposed on a ball.
You didn't say the earth was moving. I added it because it is part of the heliocentric model. As far as the sun moving being relative, you make my case about relativity. You're saying: either it does, or it doesn't, or it kind of does, but we're not sure, everything's relative, frame of reference, etc. You're not being precise but relative, so there is no answer. Does the sun move or not? Either it does or it doesn't, despite frame of reference or any other convoluted nonsense pagan science has forced us to imbibe. Thankfully, we can be sure the sun moves because the Church has spoken through the Holy Office in 1633:
The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
There is no passage that says earth is flat. But neither are there passages that say Mary was conceived Immaculate. That doesn't mean it isn't there.
OK, then what passages suggest flat earth? If it's not in the Bible explicitly, then it's the product of interpretation from some Church Fathers and, in that case, the teaching of Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII applies.Forgive me for this, I pulled several passages from various places and they are not organized as I'd like.
It is very interesting that no one in this entire thread believes that the earth is a globe. No globe earther has been able to explain the video below. :laugh2: :laugh1: :jumping2: :applause:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hecpmnkyCyw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hecpmnkyCyw)
I will also add, that the whole fathers discussion took place ad nauseam in this thread.Thanks for that thread. I appreciated reading An Even Seven's posts. He really seems to have a good grasp on this issue.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustin-and-st-macrinast-gregory-nyssa/
I will repeat myself; wherever the Fathers spoke on the issue, most of them accepted the earth to be the way it is.
The round earth idea was always floating around. It wasn't until the acceptance or Ptolemy's almagest that people became weak in their assertion of the truth. This happened around about the time of St. Thomas.
You can quote lots of people claiming the round earth. My experience with this when it comes to the Fathers at least is that many of these quotes are dishonest. Confusion over translations etc. etc.
This applies to even some later writers, like as i mentioned St. Thomas.
Thank you truth is eternal, for bringing things back to basics.It is not circular logic at all and has nothing to do with presumptions about science. It is a matter of history that the main book on the subject used in medieval universities taught the earth is spherical. From that we can deduce a few things. Since the universities were Catholic institutions under the control of the Church, the Church had no problem with spherical earth being taught. Since students at universities were being taught using this book, virtually all educated people believed in spherical earth. Since this was so widely believed, when St. Thomas sounds like he takes acceptance of a spherical earth for granted, that is, in fact, what is happening.
Jaynek,
Be careful. You are starting down a slippery slope of intellectual dishonesty from which it will be difficult to return.
Clearly you have a lot more time than me, and I cannot respond in detail to everyone of your objections. But there are responses to all of them.
Your assumption is false that most people at the time of St. Thomas thought the earth was round. You are working in a system of circular logic because you presume that scientifically the earth is round and therefore those who though the earth was round were right. This is why I start with the science.
Opinions of some Catholics might have been split, but the teachings of the ancient Catholic authorities were not split. There are exactly zero teachings on the ball earth from any ancient Catholic authority. Literally zero teachings or explanations about a ball earth. Conversely, there are plenty of teachings from them regarding flat earth. It has always been against Church teaching to believe there are anti-podes, people walking around on the opposite side of the earth.
The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.
Even if this were true, not everything written by a Church Father is a Church teaching. When they write on natural science it is not Church teaching because that is not a subject on which the Church gives instruction. The Church is for bringing people to salvation and teaches us about faith and morals. (This, by the way, is one reason why it was wrong for Pope Francis to make pronouncements about global warming.)...not everything written by a Church Father is a Church teaching.
The encyclical Providentissimus Deus explicitly says to not use the writing of the Fathers the way you are using them.
There is no Church teaching against antipodes of for flat earth. We are under no obligation to believe the opinions expressed by Church Fathers on these matters. Treating it as an obligation does not make one a good Catholic. It makes one a Catholic who is ignoring the magisterial teaching that we are not required to uphold the opinions of the Fathers when they commented on physical matters.
Even if this were true, not everything written by a Church Father is a Church teaching. When they write on natural science it is not Church teaching because that is not a subject on which the Church gives instruction. The Church is for bringing people to salvation and teaches us about faith and morals. (This, by the way, is one reason why it was wrong for Pope Francis to make pronouncements about global warming.)You said: There is no Church teaching against antipodes of for flat earth.
The encyclical Providentissimus Deus explicitly says to not use the writing of the Fathers the way you are using them.
We are under no obligation to believe the opinions expressed by Church Fathers on these matters. Treating it as an obligation does not make one a good Catholic. It makes one a Catholic who is ignoring the magisterial teaching that we are not required to uphold the opinions of the Fathers when they commented on physical matters.
...not everything written by a Church Father is a Church teaching.No, a thing universally held by Church Fathers would not be a Church teaching if it did not pertain to faith and morals.
True, but everything universally held by Church Fathers IS certainly Church teaching. With zero heliocentric teachings to counter the geocentric teachings, we have no contest. If you actually find there are some teachings by Fathers, Popes, or Saints, please provide them in the interest of truth. Everybody wants to know they exist. But if you have none, or you find some snippet or phrase that seems to favor heliocentrism, just save it. The mountains of evidence you'd have to overcome with so little will leave you looking like you are not interested in the mind of the Church or the truth, but rather, just want to deny perennial Catholic teaching.
Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas.Even if every Father had written that he believed in a flat earth and not a single one in favour of a spherical earth (which is not the case) unless they had identified this as belonging to faith, we would be at liberty to believe the earth is a globe.
You said: There is no Church teaching against antipodes of for flat earth.One always needs to take the anti-Catholic propaganda of Protestants with a grain of salt. In this particular case Wikipedia writes:
This particular Protestant historian relates well docuмented Catholic history to showcase how stupid Cathoics are for teaching flat earth, and in this case for teaching against the antipodes. Notice the language he uses which necessitates further investigation before making so bold a claim that there is no teaching against antipodes. Severian Bishop of Gabala also specifically agrees that this is Church teaching.
The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.•pg 104 A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom--Andrew Dickson WhiteIn case you were wondering, this Latin phrase translates to:
securus judicat orbis terrarum—the secure judgment of the whole world, by which is meant the Catholic Church.In other words, the entire Church held the view that there were no antipodes.
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom was published in two volumes by Andrew Dickson White (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dickson_White), the founder of Cornell University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University), in 1896. There is no evidence that White examined any primary sources, and many of the claims are complete fabrications.
You said: There is no Church teaching against antipodes of for flat earth.
This particular Protestant historian relates well docuмented Catholic history to showcase how stupid Cathoics are for teaching flat earth, and in this case for teaching against the antipodes. Notice the language he uses which necessitates further investigation before making so bold a claim that there is no teaching against antipodes. Severian Bishop of Gabala also specifically agrees that this is Church teaching.
The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.•pg 104 A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom--Andrew Dickson WhiteIn case you were wondering, this Latin phrase translates to:
securus judicat orbis terrarum—the secure judgment of the whole world, by which is meant the Catholic Church.In other words, the entire Church held the view that there were no antipodes.
Excellent post, happenby.You think it is excellent that FE proponents are so desperate for support they resort to citing anti-Catholic propaganda as if it were credible? You don't see a problem with that?
It is very interesting that no one in this entire thread believes that the earth is a globe. No globe earther has been able to explain the video below. :laugh2: :laugh1: :jumping2: :applause:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hecpmnkyCyw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hecpmnkyCyw)
Meg,
It is a valid question and well spotted. I have never tried to hide it, and have been honest with anyone who asked. You were the first one to openly ask on the forum and not through private message. Its amazing to me though people knew, no one said outed me sooner.
A rough ashlar is an imperfect stone, just as we are imperfect and tainted though original sin. It a philosophical concept that as you progress though life, you try to constantly work at it through the grace of God and try to rid yourself of your imperfections and vices.
Long story short, I was in tradition for decades and saw the rise and fall of the SSPX. I became conflicted with numerous things and drifted away from the Church. My family, also in tradition has spread from the NO to SSPX to Boston, KY. I left all together, but still come here to check on the status and happenings with in the resistance.
There are many fake, false, and erroneous things on the internet. Its much like the things said about Trump, it doesn't have to be true to be used against him. I wish to clarify a few things from this thread:
1) Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ does not have a position on Flat Earth and Globe Earth no matter what you read on the internet. No one person speaks for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and I'm sure there are people on both sides of the isle on this topic. I personally believe that the earth is a globe. There is no Flat Sun, Flat Moon, Flat Mars, Flat Comet, Flat Asteroid Society...everyone seems fine with those being globular, I don't see the harm in believing that the earth might be a globe too. I enjoy the debate...I do not enjoy Truth is Eternals extremism posing as Catholicism.
2) Lodges to not specifically revere Fr. Copernicus or Galileo. They respect and honor the study of Astronomy, Geometry, Arithmetic, Music, Logic, Rhetoric and Grammar. If there is any mention of these two men it was because they further advanced scientific discovery.
3) You give Freemason's way too much credit. They are too busy with trying to coordinate the fish fry, pancake breakfast, and fundraisers to try to take over the world. There might be organizations of the rich and powerful controlling the world, but its not the masons any more if it ever was.
4) The oldest surviving globe is by Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim) . This is many years before the start of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. "During his visit to his native home in Nuremberg, in collaboration with the painter Georg Glockendon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Glockendon), Martin Behaim constructed his familiar terrestrial globe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) between 1491 and 1493, one of two globes, which he called the Erdapfel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdapfel) (literally, the earth apple). It conforms to an idea of a globe envisioned in 1475 by Pope Sixtus IV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sixtus_IV), but has the added improvements of meridians and an equatorial line."
5) I'll ask again.
Is there one traditional Catholic priest in the world that preaches flat earth is necessary for salvation? Is there any priest/religious/visionary/doctor/pope anybody alive or dead that said that have said that believing that the earth is a globe is Satanism? I don't remember that blasphemy being an unforgivable sin in my Catechism. In the dozen encyclicals over the last 200+ years that spoke against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, was there a single one that said that the globe was a masonic deception?
Take Care and God Bless,
Excellent post, happenby.Thanks, Meg. Back at ya. You're doing a great job with the kind of information that clarifies and solidifies the truth of fe. Sadly, there will always be those who gloss over Catholic quotes and tradition with their shameless bent in order to maintain the pagan status quo. Smh.
Thanks, Meg. Back at ya. You're doing a great job with the kind of information that clarifies and solidifies the truth of fe. Sadly, there will always be those who gloss over Catholic quotes and tradition with their shameless bent in order to maintain the pagan status quo. Smh.Wow! Even after you have seen a papal encyclical that explains how to properly understand these "Catholic quotes" you have collected, you do not change your view at all.
Carry on! I'll be around.
No, a thing universally held by Church Fathers would not be a Church teaching if it did not pertain to faith and morals.Flat earth is not only scriptural, it is also founded in Tradition, plus the Church specifically condemned Heliocentrism, all proving this is a matter of Faith. Besides that, the round ball Heliocentric model is masterminded, controlled and promoted by freemasonic demon worshiping liars raking in billions with all the associated lies: NASA fake space exploration, moon landings, evolution, global warming, the Big Bang science garbage and the notion resources are scarce which assists in bringing about eugenics, abortion and population control. They say lies enslave and this one is a whopper, so there's no question it matters to the Faith which is the answer for all our ills. If only we believe.
This to is addressed in Providentissimus Deus:Even if every Father had written that he believed in a flat earth and not a single one in favour of a spherical earth (which is not the case) unless they had identified this as belonging to faith, we would be at liberty to believe the earth is a globe.
So go through your quotes again and find how many of them explicitly identify flat earth as belonging to faith. I did not notice any.
If you want to try to establish by science that the earth is flat, I don't care. But when you treat FE as something that I as a Catholic am obliged to believe, then you are the one going against Church teaching.
Flat earth is not only scriptural, it is also founded in Tradition, plus the Church specifically condemned Heliocentrism, all proving this is a matter of Faith. Besides that, the round ball Heliocentric model is masterminded, controlled and promoted by freemasonic demon worshiping liars raking in billions with all the associated lies: NASA fake space exploration, moon landings, evolution, global warming, the Big Bang science garbage and the notion resources are scarce which assists in bringing about eugenics, abortion and population control. They say lies enslave and this one is a whopper, so there's no question it matters to the Faith which is the answer for all our ills. If only we believe.FE is scriptural in the sense that you are looking at Scripture, but you are not understanding Scripture as the Church teaches us to, but rather as heretics do. FE is founded in Tradition in the sense that you are looking at the writings of the Fathers, but you are not understanding them as the Church teaches us to. The condemnation of heliocentrism does not say anything about the earth being flat so it does not prove anything about it.
You have probably never seen Prudentissimus Deus before I cited it.Sorry, that should be Providentissimus Deus.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of historic people who wrote in support of a spherical earth, most of whom were Catholic.
Assuming that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ began in the 18th century, all of these people lived before it. Do you really want to say that none of them have a place in the Church and that they all practised Satanism?
Jaynek,It was quite clear to me, even in the English translation, that St. Thomas wrote of the spherical earth as one who accepted it as true and took it for granted. This would be even clearer in the Latin because in that language the verb of contrafactual clauses is written in subjunctive rather than indicative mood. I have not even heard of a scholar who suggests that St. Thomas did not believe in the globe earth. There is nothing dishonest about me understanding a passage in the way that many (probably most) other people understand it.
At this point you are being very dishonest.
1.You claimed that St. Thomas thought the world was round. When the quote is produced it says nothing of the sort. The only thing you can do to support this spurious claim is to say that "everyone at the time thought it was round, so he though it was round". In other words you lied.
2. You claimed that not all the quotes I gave showed that they thought the earth was flat. They clearly do and you have not provided ONE quote from my list to prove that baseless assertion. More lies therefore.
It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.
What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?
It was quite clear to me, even in the English translation, that St. Thomas wrote of the spherical earth as one who accepted it as true and took it for granted. This would be even clearer in the Latin because in that language the verb of contrafactual clauses is written in subjunctive rather than indicative mood. I have not even heard of a scholar who suggests that St. Thomas did not believe in the globe earth. There is nothing dishonest about me understanding a passage in the way that many (probably most) other people understand it.
As for the quotes, ultimately it does not matter whether or not they all show support for flat earth as you think. What we need to be looking for in quotes from the Fathers regarding flat earth is the author's indication that he is writing about a matter faith. If not, it is merely his personal opinion about natural science and not binding on us at all. Can you produce quotes that say this is a matter of faith?
It seems pretty clear that St. Augustine taught that these kind of questions are not a matter of faith:
I will also add for the sake of HONEST readers of this thread, that I don't agree with my fellow flat earthers that scripture "proves" flat earth.I do not have a problem with your position, if you come to it based on science. I do not know (or care) enough about the science to express an opinion.
It makes much more sense when you know the truth of flat earth, and one can certainly be of the opinion theologically that it is contained in it, but it doesn't prove it in a SCIENTIFIC sense. No more than you can take a cooking recipe from a book on physics.
Jaynek, if cardinal bellarmine was of the opinion that truths on Gods creation were de fide, then ordinary lay people can be of that opinion also. Most especially when modern technology can show it to be true.
I do not have a problem with your position, if you come to it based on science. I do not know (or care) enough about the science to express an opinion.
Cardinal Bellarmine wrote his opinion that truths on God's creation were de fide before popes had written encyclicals saying otherwise. There was nothing wrong with him writing that, but for us now, we are bound to follow the papal teaching. Lay people might not be aware of the encyclicals, so it is not sinful for them to disobey them in ignorance, but once they have been informed, lay people are obliged to follow the Church teaching.
These are just links to wikipedia pages about the people!Yes, it is unfortunate that the list of people who believed in a globe earth did not have quotes that we could examine ourselves. I would have preferred that too. You are quite right that in its current form we can't be sure.
There's nothing in it about them saying the earth is a globe!
This is the kind of intellectual dishonest I am well used to with globers.
I do not doubt that many of the people thought the earth was a globe. But I have seen far too many times quotations being mistranslated and misunderstood.
By the way, exactly what did you "appreciate" Jaynek about even stevens posts in the thread on the fathers??? Was it his total dishonesty which I exposed?
The latin tenses are irrelevant.Here is the sentence in English:
St. Thomas is merely quoting Aristotle. This is all. We do not know one way or another what he thought. All I say is that it is dishonest to claim that his quotes show it. STOP LYING PLEASE.
And here it is in Latin:The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth.
Ad secundum dicendum quod terram esse rotundam per aliud medium demonstrat naturalis, et per aliud astrologus, astrologus enim hoc demonstrat per media mathematica, sicut per figuras eclipsium, vel per aliud huiusmodi; naturalis vero hoc demonstrat per medium naturale, sicut per motum gravium ad medium, vel per aliud huiusmodi.
Did you even read the quote you yourself gave of St. Augustine????I was not suggesting that St. Augustine believed the earth is a ball. It seems to me that the quote is saying that questions about the shape and form of physical objects are not a matter of faith and that it can even be harmful to the faith to talk about it too much.
He is talking about DIFFERENT FLAT EARTH MODELS.
But when it comes to the suggestion that the earth is ball, he is clearly against it. MORE DISHONESTY.
You have said that you are relying on your husband for science. Ordinarily that would be a good thing. But it this case you should think for yourself. He is certainly not going to be disciplining you for thinking the globe earth error, even if he probably should. So you should be courageous and make a stand on this.
It is still not too late jaynek to turn around...
One always needs to take the anti-Catholic propaganda of Protestants with a grain of salt. In this particular case Wikipedia writes:There's no need to pretend, no need to guess, anything held by the Church for over a thousand years "always, everywhere, and by all," is doctrine. Don't take my word for it, go look it up.
But let's pretend that it is a credible source. Even if all the people he claimed taught against antipodes actually did, unless they identified if as a matter of faith, it would not be a Church teaching. Matters of natural science with no bearing on faith cannot be teachings of the Church.
It was quite clear to me, even in the English translation, that St. Thomas wrote of the spherical earth as one who accepted it as true and took it for granted. This would be even clearer in the Latin because in that language the verb of contrafactual clauses is written in subjunctive rather than indicative mood. I have not even heard of a scholar who suggests that St. Thomas did not believe in the globe earth. There is nothing dishonest about me understanding a passage in the way that many (probably most) other people understand it.Now now, its one thing to write about a globe and quite another to teach about a globe. Please provide any Catholic Father teaching on the globe. Come to think of it, I'd be interested in seeing writings by those who are even mentioning the globe in passing. Of the ones I know about only help my case, so in the interest of truth, do provide them.
As for the quotes, ultimately it does not matter whether or not they all show support for flat earth as you think. What we need to be looking for in quotes from the Fathers regarding flat earth is the author's indication that he is writing about a matter faith. If not, it is merely his personal opinion about natural science and not binding on us at all. Can you produce quotes that say this is a matter of faith?
It seems pretty clear that St. Augustine taught that these kind of questions are not a matter of faith:
Even theologians in tradition don't have a clear idea whether these encyclicals are binding. The reason being the erroneous encyclicals of modern popes. Sedes claim of course, that this is because they are not real popes.One of the encyclicals teaching us how to understand Scripture and the Fathers was written by Pope Leo XIII. If we were to reject his teaching, why would we even be trads? For many (most?) of us, his condemnations of modernism are a key factor in recognizing the crisis in the Church. I can't imagine that anyone, sede or otherwise, would accept his teaching on modernism while rejecting his teaching on Scripture.
Are you a sede Jaynek?
There's no need to pretend, no need to guess, anything held by the Church for over a thousand years "always, everywhere, and by all," is doctrine. Don't take my word for it, go look it up.Look it up where? In the book you cited which is notorious among historians for completely fabricating information.
Now now, its one thing to write about a globe and quite another to teach about a globe. Please provide any Catholic Father teaching on the globe. Come to think of it, I'd be interested in seeing writings by those who are even mentioning the globe in passing. Of the ones I know about only help my case, so in the interest of truth, do provide them.Why are you still asking for quotes from the Fathers? Haven't you understood a word that I have written? The Church teaches that what they have written on this subject is their personal opinions and not binding on Catholics. Every Father could have written that the earth is flat and it would not be a Catholic teaching that we are obliged to accept.
I was not suggesting that St. Augustine believed the earth is a ball. It seems to me that the quote is saying that questions about the shape and form of physical objects are not a matter of faith and that it can even be harmful to the faith to talk about it too much.You said: "He would probably, however, no longer allow me to read trad forums. Much more importantly, he would lose all respect for trads and our views on anything and probably stop attending the TLM with me."
My husband will not spank me if I were to start believing the earth is flat. He would probably, however, no longer allow me to read trad forums. Much more importantly, he would lose all respect for trads and our views on anything and probably stop attending the TLM with me. I fail to see how the shape of the earth is more important than my husband's salvation. It is part of my duty as a wife to do all in my power to aid his salvation. I am under no obligation at all to have an opinion on the shape of the earth. There is nothing courageous about what you suggest.
Look it up where? In the book you cited which is notorious among historians for completely fabricating information.You're the one without basic Catholic information. Ask your trad priest, make a phone call to the bishop, it doesn't matter, but please refrain from smarmy attacks on me that work against you. In the meantime, anything held by the entire Church for a 1000 years or more, is fixed truth, doctrine, and unchangeable.
Here is the sentence in English:
And here it is in Latin:
Subjunctive and indicative are moods, not tenses, and it is relevant because it shows whether St. Thomas is saying something that he himself believes.
In English, when I say "I am a Catholic" I am stating a fact and using "am" which is indicative mood. When someone says "were I a Catholic" he is referring something contrary to fact (he is not a Catholic) and using "were" which is subjunctive mood. Latin uses the subjunctive much more than English and in many more grammatical constructions.
The phrase "quod terram esse rotundam per aliud medium demonstrat" has its verb "demonstrat" in the indicative which means the author believes it is a fact. If he were alluding to something that he himself did not believe it would be in the subjunctive. There is no ambiguity about this in the original Latin.
Why are you still asking for quotes from the Fathers? Haven't you understood a word that I have written? The Church teaches that what they have written on this subject is their personal opinions and not binding on Catholics. Every Father could have written that the earth is flat and it would not be a Catholic teaching that we are obliged to accept.The Church teaches that what the Father's have written on the form of the earth is their personal opinion? Please show me proof of that.
You said: "He would probably, however, no longer allow me to read trad forums. Much more importantly, he would lose all respect for trads and our views on anything and probably stop attending the TLM with me."Of course I fear failing in my duty to help my husband find salvation. What a monster I would be if I did not.
So we have the smoking gun. The reason you cannot be reasonable about flat earth. Fear. Fear of reprisal, fear of alienation, fear of people's opinions (beyond your husband's). The fact is, you are afraid of being called stupid. Yet that is exactly what you did to us in the beginning of this thread. Yep, its all there in black and white. Hopefully, there will be two lessons learned, fear not, cast not stones. Oh, yea and a third one: earth is not a globe.
I was not suggesting that St. Augustine believed the earth is a ball. It seems to me that the quote is saying that questions about the shape and form of physical objects are not a matter of faith and that it can even be harmful to the faith to talk about it too much.
My husband will not spank me if I were to start believing the earth is flat. He would probably, however, no longer allow me to read trad forums. Much more importantly, he would lose all respect for trads and our views on anything and probably stop attending the TLM with me. I fail to see how the shape of the earth is more important than my husband's salvation. It is part of my duty as a wife to do all in my power to aid his salvation. I am under no obligation at all to have an opinion on the shape of the earth. There is nothing courageous about what you suggest.
In the meantime, anything held by the entire Church for a 1000 years or more, is fixed truth, doctrine, and unchangeable.Can you support this from an authoritative source?
The Church teaches that what the Father's have written on the form of the earth is their personal opinion? Please show me proof of that.Please reread all the posts I have written in this thread which refer to Providentissimus Deus or better yet, read the encyclical yourself.
One of the encyclicals teaching us how to understand Scripture and the Fathers was written by Pope Leo XIII. If we were to reject his teaching, why would we even be trads? For many (most?) of us, his condemnations of modernism are a key factor in recognizing the crisis in the Church. I can't imagine that anyone, sede or otherwise, would accept his teaching on modernism while rejecting his teaching on Scripture.
But there would be a disturbing lack of docility in a Catholic who would reject an encyclical because it does not allow him to interpret Scripture as he wishes. This is the attitude that led to the rise of Protestantism.
Of course I fear failing in my duty to help my husband find salvation. What a monster I would be if I did not.You seemed to have missed my point again. You are afraid of being called stupid, yet that is what you did to us.
But I don't know where you are getting these ideas about me fearing other things.
I was not suggesting that St. Augustine believed the earth is a ball. It seems to me that the quote is saying that questions about the shape and form of physical objects are not a matter of faith and that it can even be harmful to the faith to talk about it too much.
Please reread all the posts I have written in this thread which refer to Providentissimus Deus or better yet, read the encyclical yourself.Ma'am. That docuмent does not say what you think it does. The Church actually condemned heliocentrism formally."
We should care about the truth above all things. Which is why you are totally inconsistent, in defending corporal punishment and yet refusing to even look into the scientific proofs of the flat earth, and pertinaciously clinging to your BELIEF in the round earth against all the evidence.I am not looking at science about flat earth because I do not expect to understand it. I might be able to figure it out if I studied enough, but I do not care about it enough to make the effort. It has no bearing on my salvation.
I am not looking at science about flat earth because I do not expect to understand it. I might be able to figure it out if I studied enough, but I do not care about it enough to make the effort. It has no bearing on my salvation.
Speaking of my duties as a wife, I have other things to do than make the same points over and over again on this thread. I have done my best to explain Church teaching. If people are not going to accept it, that is not my responsibility.
I accept these distinctions you are making. I too can understand grammar.
It doesn't necessarily indicate that St. Thomas believes it. Because it is part of the wider paragraph in which he is making a point about scientific proofs. While Latin does provide more precision in certain ways, it does not necessarily follow that St. Thomas was therefore making this his opinion. You are reading too much into it.
And thus being dishonest.
Speaking of my duties as a wife, I have other things to do than make the same points over and over again on this thread. I have done my best to explain Church teaching. If people are not going to accept it, that is not my responsibility.Explaining Church teaching contrary to Church teaching is not explaining but perverting. You have exactly zero proofs that earth is a globe. You have zero proofs that the Church taught earth is a globe. You have zero proofs that those who defend the literal interpretation of scripture as the Church Fathers specifically did on this subject are wrong. On the other hand, we have provided you with a small portion of what the Church teaches on the subject only to be subjected to scorn, ridicule, disbelief, and odd interpretations of encyclicals that undermine what the Fathers actually teach because you are afraid of how that is going to affect you and your relationship with your husband and friends. Who can accept that?
Honestly, you're all wasting too much time on what St. Thomas believed on this matter. Whether he believed round or flat makes little difference. What's at issue is whether the Church has pronounced on this subject. In point of fact, the Magisterium has never even opined in favor of Flat Earth or Spherical Earth. Indeed, there were some early Church Fathers who believed this, but the Providentissmus Deus quote amply demonstrates that a consensus on a scientific matter by the Fathers does not constitute the dogmatic consensus that's typically the hallmark of something being part of the Deposit. It's quite possible, as Pope Leo teaches, that it was simply a function of the state of science at the time ... and not something revealed by Our Lord to the Apostles. So this argument that it's Church teaching I find utterly unconvincing ... and much less that it's "heresy" to believe in a Spherical Earth.We can always discuss Fe on its scientific merits, but you have seen only a fraction of the proofs that the Church teaches it. It seems to me that what appears to be ludicrous at first glance should not be tossed out because of an impression, but further requests for proof are naturally desirable in order to be certain. If you think that is preposterous, try this: Heliocentrism is the foundation of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
I am willing to discuss this on its scientific merits but this idea that it's part of the Church's Magisterium I find to be preposterous.
The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.
If you think that is preposterous, try this: Heliocentrism is the foundation of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
But lets let that rest a while and try some math and science. It is impossible for sundials, gyros, sextants, astrolabes, airplanes, laser levels and light houses to work on a globe. At a mere 90 miles distance, the earth of said 25,000 miles in circuмference would leave any target a mile below view. Planes would have to dip their noses down to follow the arc to complete any distance across the face of the earth, yet their gyros don't operate that way because gyros are only capable of keeping planes level. What do you have to say about the lack of curve and the impossibility of using said instruments on a globe?
I don't really know enough about how these instruments work. As for keeping planes level, as long as the gyros kept the plane level vis-a-vis the surface, only a very subtle correction of angle (or extremely slight downward dip of the nose) would be needed from time to time to keep the plane at the same altitude. That one I don't see as a big deal. I don't understand why a sundial, sextant, or astrolabe would not work on a globe earth. I do find the Hungarian laser experiment intriguing. I'll keep studying as I have time.Astrolabes and sextants work with lines and angles and line of sight. How can you measure anything when your target is many feet below your line of sight?
Curvature | in | 1 | statute | mile | 8 | inches. |
" | " | 2 | " | " | 32 | " |
" | " | 3 | " | " | 6 | feet. |
" | " | 4 | " | " | 10 | " |
" | " | 5 | " | " | 16 | " |
" | " | 6 | " | " | 24 | " |
" | " | 7 | " | " | 32 | " |
" | " | 8 | " | " | 42 | " |
" | " | 9 | " | " | 54 | " |
" | " | 10 | " | " | 66 | " |
" | " | 20 | " | " | 266 | " |
" | " | 30 | " | " | 600 | " |
" | " | 40 | " | " | 1066 | " |
" | " | 50 | " | " | 1666 | " |
" | " | 60 | " | " | 2400 | " |
" | " | 70 | " | " | 3266 | " |
" | " | 80 | " | " | 4266 | " |
" | " | 90 | " | " | 5400 | " |
" | " | 100 | " | " | 6666 | |
" | " | 120 | " | " | 9600 | " 2 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm#fn_1) |
Ladislaus,
What precisely is more convincing for you on the debunking flat earth side?
Not being nasty here, but how is it more convincing than the lack of curvature?
Thanks for your openness Ladlislaus.
You needn't thank me. I owe it to myself and to the interests of truth to remain open. I'd be lying if I would stand here and pontificate with certainty that the earth is a globe.It's just that that's rare.
I find it interesting that many explorers have traversed the earth horizontally.
But not a single one, to date, in ancient or modern times, has ever crossed the earth vertically. North/South full rotation.
That is interesting. Whenever we think of the explorers of the past, they usually travel horizontally. What we consider to be from west to east, or east to west.To this day, no airplane will take you to the other side of the earth by going over the "North Pole" or "South Pole". All travel tends to be east to west. There are no flights around the "globe" that travel over either "pole".
I am not yet convinced about lack of curvature. I have a real problem with the long days near the Southern Pole at certain times of the year, including 24-hour days at the Pole. I don't see how Flat Earth can account for that given how the sun would have to move across it.
This is ultimately the goal of introducing Coepernicus/Galileo, that GOD somehow errored in creating the earth..And not to mention the spinning ball Earth, gravity, solar system and endless universe of galaxies are all missing from Scripture.
(http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/White-Genocide.png)
https://www.flightradar24.com/23.02,-43.79/2These might be of interest.
Live flight air tracker. Zoom out. No flights over poles.
These might be of interest.Northern flights are as common as southern but even as this article describes going over the poles, they do not. Cartography from ancients and modern flat earth may show allowance for the possibility of closer proximity to the North pole for travel, but planes simply do not use those routes. The southern route isn't even approached except for glancing stops. Nothing and no one has been below the 90 parallel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route)
https://www.cntraveler.com/story/why-airplanes-sometimes-fly-over-the-north-pole (https://www.cntraveler.com/story/why-airplanes-sometimes-fly-over-the-north-pole)
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/why-does-no-aircraft-cross-directly-over-the-pole (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/why-does-no-aircraft-cross-directly-over-the-pole)
Ok, but the explanation for how the sun works on a flat earth and whether the earth actually has curvature are very different things.
Did you get time to catch the video I posted about there being no 24 hour sun in Antartica?
https://www.flightradar24.com/23.02,-43.79/2
Live flight air tracker. Zoom out. No flights over poles.
Why would anyone want to fly over the poles? Also, flat earth wouldn't prevent anyone from flying over the north pole.The pole route could be shorter in some cases making it desirable.
The pole route could be shorter in some cases making it desirable.Neither is NASA
Not all proposed flat earth models have north in the center. Moses, Enoch and Cosmas say earth is twice as wide east to west as it is north to south. In fact, if you go to Google Earth, center Africa. Then swipe down, Africa goes to the other side. Swipe down again, Africa returns. Center Africa again. Swipe sideways, swipe again. You have to swipe a third time for Africa to fully reappear. That is proof enough that Google is pulling a fast one because inhabitable earth as we know it cannot possibly be a ball.
.So some say. The convenience of the back tracking and obfuscation by modern science is epic. They never said such a thing when they posted pics of their official cgi globes over the past 50 years
The Google Earth view of the planet is not optically correct, but makes the surface appear as it would with a wide-angle lens, which is why you can't see close to the edges. The center image is enlarged more than the perimeter. It is as though viewed from about 300 miles high, which is not high enough to see the 180-degree view of the earth's face from one vantage point.
.
When you see Africa in the center, you should be able to see the east coast of South America on the left side and the west coast of India on the right. But you can't. That's because the view is not wide enough.
.
You should also see Antarctica at the bottom and the North Sea, and Iceland at the top. But you can't.
.
It doesn't "prove" anything.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.volusion.com%2Fbstu5.rxjt6%2Fv%2Fvspfiles%2Fphotos%2FRP-15601-2.jpg%3F1433330253&sp=efddcfc736e1239980293ffefb1f697c)
And what is the pic you've posted but a cartoon. Where's the real globe earth photo?.
.You talk, you claim, but you do not cite, source, or quote. So basically, we're relying on your opinion. Remember, the pagan globalists of at least the past 500 are in question here, along with the modern ones destroying with their nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. What's fascinating in these threads is that I quote scripture, Popes, Saints, and Catholics, with sources, and I get hammered with every kind of detraction. You post sentences, without sources, without explanation, and... crickets. Sometimes, when looking for truth in murky setting, its the little things.
That isn't a "photo." It's a geographically correct image of the earth composed by precise measurement and mapping which is possible without space travel. Globe models have been widely in use long before the advent of photography so that obviates the "photo" issue.
.
Planetary geodetic surveying established the true contours of all the continents within small limits of error using modern technology which only more accurately refined what had already been defined by much more crude means.
.
You don't know much about history, do you? And you're not really interested, correct?
.
You talk, you claim, but you do not cite, source, or quote. So basically, we're relying on your opinion. Remember, the pagan globalists of at least the past 500 are in question here, along with the modern ones destroying with their nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. What's fascinating in these threads is that I quote scripture, Popes, Saints, and Catholics, with sources, and I get hammered with every kind of detraction. You post sentences, without sources, without explanation, and... crickets. Sometimes, when looking for truth in murky setting, its the little things..
You talk, you claim, but you do not cite, source, or quote. So basically, we're relying on your opinion. Remember, the pagan globalists of at least the past 500 are in question here, along with the modern ones destroying with their nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. What's fascinating in these threads is that I quote scripture, Popes, Saints, and Catholics, with sources, and I get hammered with every kind of detraction. You post sentences, without sources, without explanation, and... crickets. Sometimes, when looking for truth in murky setting, its the little things.You quote them but interpret them contrary to how the Church teaches you should. These quotes do not show that you are taking a Catholic position. They are showing the opposite. You reject Church teaching on how to understand Scripture and the Fathers. Your underlying assumptions are wrong so virtually everything you post is wrong. You are not proving what you think your are proving with all your quotes. You are showing yourself to be a bad Catholic. This is not detraction. It is fraternal correction for your own good. You need to repent.
.QuoteQuote from: happenby on Today at 05:15:50 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/did-catholics-before-the-'reformation'-believe-in-fe/msg582120/#msg582120)
What's fascinating in these threads is that I quote scripture, Popes, Saints, and Catholics, with sources, and I get hammered with every kind of detraction.
You quote them but interpret them contrary to how the Church teaches you should. These quotes do not show that you are taking a Catholic position. They are showing the opposite. You reject Church teaching on how to understand Scripture and the Fathers. Your underlying assumptions are wrong so virtually everything you post is wrong. You are not proving what you think your are proving with all your quotes. You are showing yourself to be a bad Catholic. This is not detraction. It is fraternal correction for your own good. You need to repent.
I am about to take a break for Advent so I probably won't see any responses to this until I come back.
You quote them but interpret them contrary to how the Church teaches you should. These quotes do not show that you are taking a Catholic position. They are showing the opposite. You reject Church teaching on how to understand Scripture and the Fathers. Your underlying assumptions are wrong so virtually everything you post is wrong. You are not proving what you think your are proving with all your quotes. You are showing yourself to be a bad Catholic. This is not detraction. It is fraternal correction for your own good. You need to repent.
I am about to take a break for Advent so I probably won't see any responses to this until I come back.
.If your sources aren't scriptural, why do you accept them to the exclusion of scripture? You say that scripture is all I'll accept, but that isn't the case at all. It just so happens that scripture and science are never at odds with each other and there is plenty of proof that earth is not a globe. Conversely, there are zero empirical proofs that earth is a globe. Further, the science that brings the sphere to the table has been condemned by the Church. Copernicus' model was specifically condemned. And as shown before Copernicus is responsible for resurrecting the pagan spherical model of earth.
Do you want sources?
.
They won't be Scriptural, so forget that.
.
I know that's all you'll accept, so why bother.
.
Where does the Bible define the speed of light or the colors of the rainbow?
.
Tell us where the Bible lists in order the philosophical categories of being.
.
Where, oh where does Scripture pronounce on the relative electrical conductivity of silicon and gold?
.
These things are observable with our 5 senses and with the use of human reason.
.
Just like the sphericity of the earth is knowable by same.
.
This is true, but unfortunately for Ms. Ding Dong Ditch the fathers of the Church who actually taught on the subject are in fact, unanimous.
Sorry Jaynek, but you wont get away with that.
The condmenation from the holy office is pretty clear.
you have one minor encyclical from Leo XIII which is not even clearly referring to the flat earth.
The popes can teach error. Did you know that? The fathers are clear on this issue.
They don't HAVE to be unanimous for it to be a teaching.
This is true, but unfortunately for Ms. Ding Dong Ditch the fathers of the Church who actually taught on the subject are in fact, unanimous.
Even if you can demonstrate unanimity, that by itself does not necessarily rise to the level of dogmatic consensus. You'd have to have some indication that they considered it a matter of faith, that they were merely passing on teaching that traces ultimately back to the Apostles. Simple opinining without dissent isn't sufficient.True. But without a single contrary teaching, literally zero Catholic teaching that earth is a globe, the fe saints' unanimity with scripture has some teeth here. Beyond that, we have the science, the math, the reason, the motive for the lie...plus, the converse teachings are pagan, ridiculous and untenable.
True. But without a single contrary teaching, literally zero Catholic teaching that earth is a globe, the fe saints' unanimity with scripture has some teeth here. Beyond that, we have the science, the math, the reason, the motive for the lie...plus, the converse teachings are pagan, ridiculous and untenable.
One thing must be fleshed out here. Heliocentrism is a model that includes a globe earth jetting through space in 4 different directions, that stars are worlds, and that the sun is relatively stationary in relation to earth, while the whole enchilada blasts through space in a 500,000 mile per hour from a Big Bang.
Geocentrism teaches earth is flat and stationary with the heavenly lights, sun, moon and stars, which keep time, tell seasons and as scripture says, "for signs", as well as lighting the skies for earth from under the dome that separates heaven from earth.
Somewhere along the way, people became confused and have created a sub-model hybrid of Heliocentrism and Geocentrism where earth is a stationary ball hanging in space.
The most recent characters promoting this hybrid are Robert Sungenis and Rick Delano, both Catholic. Rick Delano is a very staunch anti-bod'er, as well, so I have every respect for that. But they are wrong about earth being a globe. I've written a very telling article showing that Mr. Sungenis is a closet Heliocentric and that his entire premise is sourced from pagans and pagan science.
Here's the link: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth
For further Catholic information on flat earth, the above link is just a small portion of information available on this site:
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/
True. But without a single contrary teaching, literally zero Catholic teaching that earth is a globe, the fe saints' unanimity with scripture has some teeth here.
It seems to me so far that the key to answering this question is the condemnation of Galileo where the Holy office said that he was suspect of heresy for having believed and taught that the sun was the center of the world, that it did not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the center of the world.
These are all things which touch on the creation of God, which the Holy Office is saying is part of the faith.
But, to my point, did any of the Fathers teach that flat earth is a matter of doctrine and, more particularly, that it was teaching handed down to them from the Apostles? That is key. Just because they agree on something doesn't make it dogmatic consensus. Remember that the Church Fathers are not a rule of faith unto themselves and are significant to the extent that they can give an indication in their unanimity that something was revealed and transmitted from the Apostles. But agreement by itself doesn't prove that the point in question was handed down from the Apostles.What the Fathers taught about creation was fairly extensive, and in some cases quite detailed. While the term "flat earth" was not commonly used, (although sixth century Catholic monk Cosmas used it frequently) what ancient Catholic saints and Fathers teach on the matter is that earth is necessarily flat, cannot a sphere and they base it all on scripture. What you are asking, in essence then, is, "Is what scripture says about earth a matter of doctrine?" Or, more poignantly and not to be facetious, "Are the words of scripture inerrant?" Now, you know of course, they are. Still, you wonder, does scripture really describe a flat earth to the point that earth's form is actually 'doctrine'? My answer is, scripture's description of earth's form is infallible and that is why the Fathers expounded on it.
Sure, there can be a crossover between matters of science and matters of faith ... so, for instance, heliocentrism or evolution. But the question is whether the Fathers were relaying some revealed doctrine or else just going with their own scientific assumptions at the time. I am in fact a geocentrist.There is more than one flat earth model because fe'rs do not have access to all the information necessary to know what the exact form of the earth is. We just know scripture doesn't lie, and it can't be a sphere.
But I'm still studying Flat Earth. So, for instance, some pro-FE sources say that all flights between South America and Australia move across the U.S. West Coast ... which would make sense, since it's a huge distance to cover directly on a flat earth circular disc model. But them an anti-FE source said that there have been new flights introduced that go directly across, and they cover the distance in the time expected by a globe earth model, that the planes would have to be travelling at Mach 2 (Concorde speeds) to make in that time period the distance that it would be on a Flat Earth model. Some people claim that these flights don't exist, whereas others claim that they were ON these flights and covered the distance in the amount of time described.
Helio- and geocentrism in an absolute sense are not matters open to settlement through human science by any currently known means. Physics does not even recognise any absolute sense for these terms.Why accept "Newtonian mechanics" over scripture? Newton was a plagarist and a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. He was also deep into alchemy (illegal at the time) and the Kabbalah, the occult musings of medieval тαℓмυdic authors. Although he was reputed to have Christian moorings, Newton embraced the heresy of Arianism (i.e., the denial of both the divinity of Christ and the Trinity). Westfall writes: “In Newton’s eyes, worshiping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin” (Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, p. 314; On Newton’s intimacy with Wickens and Fatio, see Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer, Michael White, MA: Perseus Books, 1997, pp. 235-254).
Heliocentrism from the persective of an "inertial frame of reference", which is itself defined within the model of Newtonian mechancis, is a fact. The power of Nwtonian mechanics and its ubiquitous impact upon human civilisation and technology is beyond dispute.
Geocentrism would appear to be true in the absolute sense from revelation.
The question of human origins in unanswerable by science, in principle, period.
Evolution, even in "theistic" form, is absolutely irreconcilable with the existence a good God as creator and the implied perfection of original creation, and also with original sin and the cosmic Fall, period. It destroys the foundations of the very ideas of Catholicism which are intended to answer the age-old "problem of evil"; imperfection, suffering, death are supposed to be consequences of angelic and human disobedience, not creations of God, while theistic evolution posits a cosmos which is naturally imperfect from its inception, and in which suffering and death, and the voracious consumption of one creature by another for the mere purposes of survival, are present before the Fall - and hence the problem of evil that the Fall solves is re-introduced: the "God" of theistic evolution is monster who would sit at a table playing cards with Calvin's one.
Fiat creation is patently true from revelation, unless one wishes to frorce entirely anachronistic "mythological" interpretations upon Genesis which have NO FOUNDATION in any of the deposit of revelation, and the unanymous belief of the Fathers, to whom naturalisticand evolutionary ideas of human origins were not foreign. Enough.
If your sources aren't scriptural, why do you accept them to the exclusion of scripture?.
You say that scripture is all I'll accept, but that isn't the case at all..
It just so happens that scripture and science are never at odds with each other and there is plenty of proof that earth is not a globe..
Conversely, there are zero empirical proofs that earth is a globe..
Further, the science that brings the sphere to the table has been condemned by the Church..
Copernicus' model was specifically condemned. And as shown before Copernicus is responsible for resurrecting the pagan spherical model of earth..
.Scripture has everything to do with this, as well as the saints that expounded on it teaching earth is flat and geocentric. Just because you cannot understand, or refuse to listen doesn't mean this isn't a fact. Just because you accept modern science over scripture and the Church or that you deny what the Church has said on the matter, with regards to scripture, and to the saints that taught it. You provide no proof. You just say, "Nope". "Or, such and such is objective reality." And then you disparage me. Move on, Neil, we don't agree. I will never abandon truth because you have a different view.
You are so confused it's pathetic.
.
Scripture has no part in the discussion. Why can't you wrap your tiny head around that fact?
.
If you want to know the value of PI do you look in the Bible?
.
Have you ever used a search engine, like Google? Why bother? Why don't you look in the Bible for all your answers?
..
Yes, it is the case. Anything you DON'T LIKE and isn't Scriptural, you criticize it because it's not in the Bible.
.
So your default position is the Bible. If something isn't in there you don't believe it.
.
Is your phone number or address in the Bible? So how can you believe your phone number or address is real?
..
You just love to mix truth with lies, don't you.
.
Scripture and science are never at odds with each other, true; there is plenty of proof the earth is not a globe, false.
.
There is no proof whatsoever that the earth is not a globe.
.
There is only the fact that you are not willing to open your eyes and observe the reality that presents itself every day.
..
False, again. There are innumerable empirical proofs that the earth is a globe, and you simply refuse to look at them.
..
Wrong again. The Church has never condemned the sphericity of the earth. You are a liar.
..
The model of Copernicus the Church condemned had nothing to do with the shape of the earth. The Church is never going to condemn something that can be determined by observation, like the earth's shape can be.
.
The shape of the earth is not a "pagan model". It is an objective reality.
.
To deny objective reality makes you a Modernist, which is a condemned heresy.
.
Therefore you make yourself a heretic. Congratulations, Modernist heretic.
.
There is more than one flat earth model because fe'rs do not have access to all the information necessary to know what the exact form of the earth is. We just know scripture doesn't lie, and it can't be a sphere..
Scripture has everything to do with this,.
as well as the saints that expounded on it teaching earth is flat and geocentric..
Just because you cannot understand, or refuse to listen doesn't mean this isn't a fact..
Just because you accept modern science over scripture and the Church or that you deny what the Church has said on the matter, with regards to scripture, and to the saints that taught it. You provide no proof. You just say, "Nope". "Or, such and such is objective reality." And then you disparage me. Move on, Neil, we don't agree. I will never abandon truth because you have a different view..
You just say, "Nope"..
.(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/#2)
No, that's not the problem at all.
.
The problem with flat-earthers is they refuse to observe what is real, right in front of their face every day, and think about it.
.
All the information you need is right there, plain as the nose on your face, but you simply can't bother to look.
.
Your golden-calf-false-god of flat-earthism is all that's important to you.
.
.<sigh> Ok, Neil. You win.
You're a liar, happenby. I've never said "Nope."
.
There is more than one flat earth model because fe'rs do not have access to all the information necessary to know what the exact form of the earth is. We just know scripture doesn't lie, and it can't be a sphere..
As you can see, Neil, references agree that Copernicus for whom the Copernican model was named, that which was condemned by the Holy Office, also known as Heliocentrism, a certain aspect belongs: that is, the spherical earth. The spherical earth brought to you by Copernicus.
CONDEMNED
Quote from: happenby (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=47267.msg582632#msg582632) on Tue Dec 05 2017 12:00:41 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time).
(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/#2)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/#2 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/#2)
2.3 On the revolutions
...
11). Particularly notable for Copernicus was that in Ptolemy's model the sun, the moon, and the five planets seemed ironically to have different motions from the other heavenly bodies and it made more sense for the small earth to move than the immense heavens. But the fact that Copernicus turned the earth into a planet did not cause him to reject Aristotelian physics, for he maintained that “land and water together press upon a single center of gravity; that the earth has no other center of magnitude; that, since earth is heavier, its gaps are filled with water…” (Revolutions, 10). As Aristotle had asserted, the earth was the center toward which the physical elements gravitate. This was a problem for Copernicus's model, because if the earth was no longer the center, why should elements gravitate toward it?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#p-search)astronomical system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#Historical_cosmologies) positing that the Earth, Moon, Sun and planets revolve around an unseen "Central Fire" was developed in the 5th century BC and has been attributed to the Pythagorean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism) philosopher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy) Philolaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philolaus), a version based on Stobaeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stobaeus) account, who betrays a tendency to confound the dogmas of the early Ionian philosophers, and he occasionally mixes up Platonism with Pythagoreanism.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Boekh-1) Brewer (1894, page 2293) mentioned Pythagoras taught that the sun is a movable sphere in the centre of the universe, and that all the planets revolve round it.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Brewer-2)
The system has been called "the first coherent system in which celestial bodies move in circles",[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Pythagoreans-3) anticipating Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus) in moving "the earth from the center of the cosmos [and] making it a planet"
As you can see, Neil, references agree that Copernicus for whom the Copernican model was named, that which was condemned by the Holy Office, also known as Heliocentrism, a certain aspect belongs: that is, the spherical earth. The spherical earth brought to you by Copernicus.
CONDEMNED
The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Warfare_of_Science_with_Theology_in_Christendom) (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis) for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-8)Early modern period
Virgil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergilius_of_Salzburg), sometime bishop of Salzburg (as Aventinus anno 745 relates), by Bonifacius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Boniface), bishop of Mentz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainz), was therefore called in question, because he held antipodes (which they made a doubt whether Christ died for) and so by that means took away the seat of hell, or so contracted it, that it could bear no proportion to heaven, and contradicted that opinion of Austin [St. Augustine], Basil, Lactantius, that held the Earth round as a trencher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trencher_(tableware)) (whom Acosta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_de_Acosta) and common experience more largely confute) but not as a ball.Thus, there is evidence that accusations of Flatearthism, though somewhat whimsical (Burton ends his digression with a legitimate quotation of St. Augustine: "Better doubt of things concealed, than to contend about uncertainties, where Abraham's bosom is, and hell fire"[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-burton-10)) were used to discredit opposing authorities several centuries before the 19th. Another early mention in literature is Ludvig Holberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Holberg)'s comedy Erasmus Montanus (1723). Erasmus Montanus meets considerable opposition when he claims the Earth is round, since all the peasants hold it to be flat. He is not allowed to marry his fiancée until he cries "The earth is flat as a pancake". In Thomas Jefferson's book Notes on the State of Virginia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_State_of_Virginia) (1784), framed as answers to a series of questions (queries), Jefferson uses the "Query" regarding religion to attack the idea of state-sponsored official religions. In the chapter, Jefferson relates a series of official erroneous beliefs about nature forced upon people by authority. One of these is the episode of Galileo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo)'s struggles with authority, which Jefferson erroneously frames in terms of the shape of the globe:[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-11)
Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the Earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trencher_(tableware)), and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the Earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation#Vortex).19th century
When Columbus lived, people thought that the earth was flat. They believed the Atlantic Ocean to be filled with monsters large enough to devour their ships, and with fearful waterfalls over which their frail vessels would plunge to destruction. Columbus had to fight these foolish beliefs in order to get men to sail with him. He felt sure the earth was round.[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-29)Previous editions of Thomas Bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey)'s The American Pageant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Pageant) stated that "The superstitious sailors [of Columbus's crew] ... grew increasingly mutinous ... because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known.[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTELoewen199656-30)
And if you're so hot on quoting Wikipedia (instead of Scripture) why don't you quote Wikipedia for flat-earthism?.
Wikipedia:This is like posting the main stream media news for consumption as if it were true. There is so much wrong with this article historically and factually, I haven't the time to fully tear it apart. That this piece dares to characterize Columbus' crew as superstitious and on the verge of mutiny is utterly false. Many of his men were self-sacrificing Catholics who prayed continuously to Our Lady throughout their journeys. And really, who cares what Louise Bishop or Jeffrey Burton Russel thinks? Rest assured, the modern world does not want anyone to know what the truth is, and this reflects that perfectly.
.
.
.
The myth of the flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) in Europe was that the Earth is flat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth), instead of spherical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell19913-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1997-2)
.
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch)'s famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights), in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGombrich1969162.E2.80.93170-3)
.
According to Stephen Jay Gould (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould), "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGould1997-4) Historians of science David Lindberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Lindberg) and Ronald Numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Numbers) point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circuмference".[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTELindbergNumbers1986338.E2.80.93354-5)
.
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Burton_Russell) says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Draper), Andrew Dickson White (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dickson_White), and Washington Irving (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Irving).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1991-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1993-7)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1997-2)
.
History
In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_Flat_Earth), Jeffrey Russell describes the Flat Earth theory as a fable used to impugn (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impugn) pre-modern civilization and creationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1991-6)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1997-2)
James Hannam wrote:Early modern period
French dramatist Cyrano de Bergerac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrano_de_Bergerac_(writer)) in chapter 5 of his Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comical_History_of_the_States_and_Empires_of_the_Moon) (published 2 years posthumously in 1657) quotes St. Augustine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) as saying "that in his day and age the Earth was as flat as a stove lid and that it floated on water like half of a sliced orange."[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-9) Robert Burton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Burton_(scholar)), in his The Anatomy of Melancholy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Melancholy)[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-burton-10)wrote:Thus, there is evidence that accusations of Flatearthism, though somewhat whimsical (Burton ends his digression with a legitimate quotation of St. Augustine: "Better doubt of things concealed, than to contend about uncertainties, where Abraham's bosom is, and hell fire"[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-burton-10)) were used to discredit opposing authorities several centuries before the 19th. Another early mention in literature is Ludvig Holberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Holberg)'s comedy Erasmus Montanus (1723). Erasmus Montanus meets considerable opposition when he claims the Earth is round, since all the peasants hold it to be flat. He is not allowed to marry his fiancée until he cries "The earth is flat as a pancake". In Thomas Jefferson's book Notes on the State of Virginia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_State_of_Virginia) (1784), framed as answers to a series of questions (queries), Jefferson uses the "Query" regarding religion to attack the idea of state-sponsored official religions. In the chapter, Jefferson relates a series of official erroneous beliefs about nature forced upon people by authority. One of these is the episode of Galileo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo)'s struggles with authority, which Jefferson erroneously frames in terms of the shape of the globe:[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-11)19th century
The 19th century was a period in which the perception of an antagonism between religion and science was especially strong. The disputes surrounding the Darwinian revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_Darwin%27s_theory)contributed to the birth of the conflict thesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis),[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGould1997-4) a view of history according to which any interaction between religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) and science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) would almost inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-12)
.
Irving's biography of Columbus
In 1828, Washington Irving's highly romanticised biography, A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Life_and_Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus),[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIrving1861-13) was published and mistaken by many for a scholarly work.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell199151.E2.80.9356-14) In Book II, Chapter IV of this biography, Irving gave a largely fictional account of the meetings of a commission established by the Spanish sovereigns to examine Columbus's proposals. One of his more fanciful embellishments was a highly unlikely tale that the more ignorant and bigoted members on the commission had raised scriptural objections to Columbus's assertions that the Earth was spherical.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIrving186190-15)
.
The issue in the 1490s was not the shape of the Earth, but its size, and the position of the east coast of Asia, as Irving in fact points out. Historical estimates from Ptolemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) onwards placed the coast of Asia about 180° east of the Canary Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands).[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-16) Columbus adopted an earlier (and rejected) distance of 225°, added 28° (based on Marco Polo's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo) travels), and then placed Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) another 30° further east. Starting from Cape St. Vincent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_St._Vincent) in Portugal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal), Columbus made Eurasia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia) stretch 283° to the east, leaving the Atlantic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic) as only 77° wide. Since he planned to leave from the Canaries (9° further west), his trip to Japan would only have to cover 68° of longitude.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMorison194265-17)[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTENunnEdwards1924.5Bhttps:.2F.2Farchive.org.2Fstream.2Fgeographicalconc00nunn.23page.2Fn40.2Fmode.2F1up_27.E2.80.9330.5D-18)
.
Columbus mistakenly assumed that the mile referred to in the Arabic estimate of 56⅔ miles for the size of a degree was the same as the actually much shorter Italian mile of 1,480 metres (0.92 mi). His estimate for the size of the degree and for the circuмference of the Earth was therefore about 25% too small.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTENunnEdwards1924.5Bhttps:.2F.2Farchive.org.2Fstream.2Fgeographicalconc00nunn.23page.2Fn14.2Fmode.2F1up_1.E2.80.932.5D.2C_.5Bhttps:.2F.2Farchive.org.2Fstream.2Fgeographicalconc00nunn.23page.2Fn30.2Fmode.2F1up_17.E2.80.9318.5D-19) The combined effect of these mistakes was that Columbus estimated the distance to Japan to be only about 5,000 km (or only to the eastern edge of the Caribbean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean)) while the true figure is about 20,000 km. The Spanish scholars may not have known the exact distance to the east coast of Asia, but they believed that it was significantly further than Columbus's projection; and this was the basis of the criticism in Spain and Portugal, whether academic or amongst mariners, of the proposed voyage.
.
The disputed point was not the shape of the Earth, nor the idea that going west would eventually lead to Japan and China, but the ability of European ships to sail that far across open seas. The small ships of the day (Columbus's three ships varied between 20.5 and 23.5 m – or 67 to 77 feet – in length and carried about 90 men) simply could not carry enough food and water to reach Japan. The ships barely reached the eastern Caribbean islands. Already the crews were mutinous, not because of some fear of "sailing off the edge", but because they were running out of food and water with no chance of any new supplies within sailing distance. They were on the edge of starvation.[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMorison1942209.2C_211-20) What saved Columbus was the unknown existence of the Americas precisely at the point he thought he would reach Japan. His ability to resupply with food and water from the Caribbean islands allowed him to return safely to Europe. Otherwise his crews would have died, and the ships foundered.
.
Advocates for science
In 1834, a few years after the publication of Irving's book, Jean Antoine Letronne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Antoine_Letronne), a French academic of strong antireligious ideas, misrepresented the church fathers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_fathers) and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1997-2)[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTELetronne1883-21) Then in 1837, the English philosopher of science William Whewell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whewell), in his History of the Inductive Sciences, identified Lactantius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius), author of Institutiones Divinae (c. 310), and Cosmas Indicopleustes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_Indicopleustes), author of Christian Topography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Topography) (c. 548 ), as evidence of a medieval belief in a Flat Earth. Lactantius had been ridiculed much earlier by Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus) in De revolutionibus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus) of 1543 as someone who "Speaks quite childishly about the Earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the Earth has the form of a globe".
.
Other historians quickly followed Whewell, although they could identify few other examples.[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGould199742-22) The American chemist John William Draper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Draper) wrote a History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), employing the claim that the early Church fathers thought the Earth was flat as evidence of the hostility of the Church to the advancement of science.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGarwood200710.E2.80.9311-23)The story of widespread religious belief in the flat Earth was repeated by Andrew Dickson White (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dickson_White) in his 1876 The Warfare of Science[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWhite187610.E2.80.9322-24) and elaborated twenty years later in his two-volume History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, which exaggerated the number and significance of medieval flat Earthers to support White's model of warfare between dogmatic theology and scientific progress.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGarwood200712.E2.80.9313-25) As Draper and White's metaphor of ongoing warfare between the scientific progress of the Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) and the religious obscurantism of the "Dark Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography))" became widely accepted, it spread the idea of medieval belief in the flat Earth.[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGarwood200713.E2.80.9314-26)
.
The widely circulated engraving of a man poking his head through the firmament surrounding the Earth to view the Empyrean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyrean), executed in the style of the 16th century, was published in Camille Flammarion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Flammarion)'s L'Atmosphère: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888, p. 163).[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-27) The engraving illustrates the statement in the text that a medieval missionary claimed that "he reached the horizon where the Earth and the heavens met". In its original form, the engraving included a decorative border that places it in the 19th century. In later publications, some of which claimed that the engraving dates to the 16th century, the border was removed.
.
20th century and onward(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/Boorstin_discoverers.jpg/220px-Boorstin_discoverers.jpg) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boorstin_discoverers.jpg)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boorstin_discoverers.jpg)
Front Cover of Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discoverers) (1983), bearing a copy of the Flammarion engraving
Since the early 20th century, a number of books and articles have docuмented the flat earth error as one of a number of widespread misconceptions in popular views of the Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medievalism). Both E. M. W. Tillyard's book The Elizabethan World Picture and C. S. Lewis' The Discarded Image are devoted to a broad survey of how the universe was viewed in Renaissance and medieval times, and both extensively discuss how the educated classes knew the world was round. Lewis draws attention to the fact that in Dante's The Divine Comedy about an epic voyage through hell, purgatory, and heaven, the earth is spherical with gravity being towards the center of the earth. As the Devil is frozen in a block of ice in the center of the earth, Dante and Virgil climb down the Devil's torso, but up from the Devil's waist to his feet, as his waist is at the center of the earth.
.
Jeffrey Burton Russell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Burton_Russell) rebutted the prevalence of belief in the flat Earth in a monograph[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1991-6) and two papers.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1993-7)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1997-2) Louise Bishop states that virtually every thinker and writer of the 1000-year medieval period affirmed the spherical shape of the Earth.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBishop200899-28)
.
Although the misconception was frequently refuted in historical scholarship since at least 1920, it persisted in popular culture and in some school textbooks into the 21st century. An American schoolbook by Emma Miller Bolenius published in 1919 has this introduction to the suggested reading for Columbus Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day) (12 October):Previous editions of Thomas Bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey)'s The American Pageant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Pageant) stated that "The superstitious sailors [of Columbus's crew] ... grew increasingly mutinous ... because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known.[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTELoewen199656-30)
.
A 2009 survey of schoolbooks from Austria and Germany showed that the Flat Earth myth became dominant in the second half of the 20th century and persists in most historical textbooks for German and Austrian schools.[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhard2014-31)
.
As recently as 1983 Daniel Boorstin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Boorstin) published a historical survey, The Discoverers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discoverers), which presented the Flammarion engraving on its cover and proclaimed that "from AD 300 to at least 1300 ... Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so ... scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers."[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBoorstin1983100-32) Boorstin dedicated a chapter to the flat earth, in which he portrayed Cosmas Indicopleustes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_Indicopleustes) as the founder of Christian geography.[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBoorstin1983108.E2.80.93109-33) The flat earth model has often been incorrectly supposed to be church doctrine by those who wish to portray the Catholic Church as being anti-progress or hostile to scientific inquiry. This narrative has been repeated even in academic circles, such as in April 2016, when Boston College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_College) theology professor and ex-priest Thomas Groome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Groome) erroneously stated that "the Catholic Church never said the earth is round, but just stopped saying it was flat."[34] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-34)
.
The 1937 popular song They All Laughed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_All_Laughed_(song)) contains the couplet "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus/When he said the world was round". In the Warner Bros. Merrie Melodiescartoon Hare We Go (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_We_Go) (1951) Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand the Catholic quarrel about the shape of the Earth; the king states the Earth is flat. In Walt Disney's 1963 animation The Sword in the Stone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_in_the_Stone_(film)), wizard Merlin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin) (who has traveled into the future) explains to a young Arthur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur) that "man will discover in centuries to come" that the Earth is round, and rotates.
.
This is like posting the main stream media news for consumption as if it were true. There is so much wrong with this article historically and factually, I haven't the time to fully tear it apart. That this piece dares to characterize Columbus' crew as superstitious and on the verge of mutiny is utterly false. Many of his men were self-sacrificing Catholics who prayed continuously to Our Lady throughout their journeys. And really, who cares what Louise Bishop or Jeffrey Burton Russel thinks? Rest assured, the modern world does not want anyone to know what the truth is, and this reflects that perfectly..
I've looked at the results of the Hungarian (Lake Balaton laser) experiment and it appears to be rather convincing ... unless it was completely hoaxed.https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/page-19#post-190631
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Burton_Russell) says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Draper), Andrew Dickson White (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dickson_White), and Washington Irving (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Irving).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1991-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1993-7)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1997-2)Jeffrey Burton Russell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Burton_Russell) rebutted the prevalence of belief in the flat Earth in a monograph[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1991-6) and two papers.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1993-7)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1997-2) Louise Bishop states that virtually every thinker and writer of the 1000-year medieval period affirmed the spherical shape of the Earth.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBishop200899-28)
.
My take on his view: He evidently isn't Catholic. So of course his views on the medieval world might be somewhat distorted. He then goes on to discuss where heaven is located:
-------
"In Hebrew thought, and in Christian thought, and in Muslim thought, there is an up and down. That is to say, the idea was, and up until the 1600's or 1700's, the idea was quite literal that you went UP to heaven, whether by a ladder, or though spheres or whatever; you went up - God was way up there."
My take on his view: It's interesting that he says the idea in the 15th and 16th century was that you went "up." He seems to convey that this is no longer the prevalent view. In which way do we go, then, if not "up?"
I suppose on a globe earth, humans would have to go sideways? Or does he mean to say that heaven is just all around us? It's often difficult to tell with Protestants. They usually worry that they will be considered politically incorrect, or misjudged.
Advocates for science
In 1834, a few years after the publication of Irving's book, Jean Antoine Letronne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Antoine_Letronne), a French academic of strong antireligious ideas, misrepresented the church fathers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_fathers) and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1997-2)[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTELetronne1883-21) Then in 1837, the English philosopher of science William Whewell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whewell), in his History of the Inductive Sciences, identified Lactantius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius), author of Institutiones Divinae (c. 310), and Cosmas Indicopleustes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_Indicopleustes), author of Christian Topography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Topography) (c. 548 ), as evidence of a medieval belief in a Flat Earth. Lactantius had been ridiculed much earlier by Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus) in De revolutionibus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus) of 1543 as someone who "Speaks quite childishly about the Earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the Earth has the form of a globe".
https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/page-19#post-190631
Talks about it and people have taken it apart. It also has a graph that shows the different distances and drops with the lasers.
.
I saw the Balaton video and the laser was most certainly not pointed down ... as this blog claims. They took measurements every few dozen yards and the beam for the first three measurements was within one centimeter ... which proved that the laser was level with the water. Unless the video was hoaxed (which you can't rule out), what I saw ... if true ... was extremely convincing.
.
You did not read far enough in the metabunk forum. A few posts accused them of not having a level laser. BTW a few dozen meters with one centimeter's error (or even one millimeter!) would not ensure a level instrument for projection across several kilometers. They would have needed to establish less than one millimeter variation over 300 meters, by checking in opposite directions, before they would have reasonable assurance of an adequately level laser. Then their accuracy would have been within 3 millimeters in one kilometer or 6 in two or 9 millimeters in three kilometers.
.
Be that as it may, the ultimate accusation on the metabunk site is in regards to the distortion that occurs over such surfaces as bodies of water, especially when there is an inversion layer (warm air on top of cold air). The cold air is commonly found lying over the surface of water, and a warm layer of air is not infrequently found above the cold layer. They explain that differences in air density causes the bending of light, just as it does when a laser is pointed into the surface of water at an angle. Viewed from the side, one can see that the laser striking the surface of water at a low angle (like a flashlight held in a boy's hand pointed out over a lake) when it penetrates the surface of the water the laser bends downward since the water is of a greater density than the air. If you have ever tried poking a long, straight stick or fiberglass pole into the water (like a swimming pool cleaning net) you see the pole appear to bend upwards from above the water looking down the length of the pole -- but the pole is not bending, the light is doing the bending. Or, if you attempt to shoot a fish with a bow and arrow, you have to aim much LOWER than the fish for your arrow to hit the target since the arrow will continue to fly through the water in a straight line but from the position of the bow the arrow will appear to bend upward in its flight under water, since the light coming off the fish bends when it hits the water's surface at an angle.
.
Consequently, over the surface of water, where this condition is very likely to occur, objects that are far away over the water's surface and very low down and close to it, might appear to be higher up than they really are, due to the higher density of air that's near the surface of water, in part due to humidity increase and in part due to lower temperature. They post several photographs that demonstrate this phenomenon, which they identify as "looming." Additionally, tall objects with identifiable features at various heights can be seen to appear compressed when viewed through a telescope, such that the parts of the object close to the water's surface will appear shorter in height than they do when photographed at close range without the telescope. For example, the rungs of a standing ladder which are equally spaced will appear closer together near the bottom of the ladder, and gradually further apart as one looks higher up on the ladder, until at some point, perhaps 30 feet high, the rungs all appear to be equally spaced. This gradual change is comparable to the logarithmic scale of a slide rule, but it only applies to the lowest parts of the image in question. At about one or two miles, for example, it applies to the lower 20 or 30 feet. Objects close to the water's surface appear distorted and compressed vertically.
.
Extending this principle to the whole picture of what is being viewed, it becomes clear that since the light traveling close to the surface of the water but still through air, can be bending downward toward the water, it is possible that this bending can be close to, equal to or greater than the curvature of the surface of the water. They provide figures on the site for what amount of bending light would be needed to equal the earth's curvature.
.
Not to say this is conclusive, but only that the three different experiments shown (only one of which is the Balaton lake video - there are two more they refer to as well) were conducted by well-meaning people but they used inadequate methods. They only made one observation. They only did it at one time. They only did it over the same surface of water.
.
They should have done several observations, on different days, at different times of year and different temperatures and humidity; they should have done some laser shots over dry land and in opposite directions, to demonstrate and discover what the consequence of having a laser slightly out of level would be. They are also accused of having a target on the boat that has a diffusely reflective surface such that the place the laser hits the panel on the boat is clearly seen from shore where the laser is coming from (in a way like a traffic sign on the highway has diffusely reflective paint which shines your headlights right back at you from any direction whatsoever). They are accused of then perhaps moving the laser down to meet the boat's target so they could get a favorable reading. I'm not making this accusation, I'm just reporting what the metabunk thread says.
.
My question was, since they were riding in a small boat on the surface of water with a laser beam shining on their white board, why was the laser beam so steady on the board when you know that small boats on the water are bobbing up and down, right and left, fore and aft CONSTANTLY, and this cannot be controlled -- EVER. If it were real, that laser dot would have been all over the place, never standing still. But they showed it standing still almost all the time, with very little movement, if any.
.
Also, on the metabunk site they refer to a well-known laser in Greenwich, England, which is a beacon for scientific use, and it shines out into the air above the land for all to see. It is observed some kilometers away where it comes close to striking a tall building, where they say it is actually two inches away from the building, nonetheless, there is a visible glow all around the beam which makes a splash of ambient light spilling across the perpendicular side of the tall building. The center of this glow is quite bright and would appear to be the laser itself, but perhaps the resolution of the image is wanting. In any case, there was no similar ambient glow in the Balaton boat's white panel or screen. This makes me wonder why the laser appeared therefore to be much closer to the boat than what they said it was. The laser in England is said to be shining through some dust clouds, the particles of which scatter the laser light by the time it reaches the tall building. But there are particles of moisture lying near the surface of water, so wouldn't that have the same effect at Balaton?
.
Begin with an ad hominem ...
... give the lame ol' excuse as to why you won't address it ...
... but twist the sense of the one thing you pick out of it while expressing your moral outrage ...
... and then leave us with the smug assurance that you know the truth and the rest of the world is just too lazy or wilfully ignorant to discover it.
Argumentation for Weasels 101.
Kiwi,
Just to clarify you said that, "The biggest problem we have therefore is people who are so dogmatically insistent on the globe, (or secretly so like even steven), when it has clearly been condemned."
Isn't it conflating shape with heliocentrism? Wasn't Galileo condemned because helio was strongly suspected of heresy?
Was the globe specifically condemned?
Well the Fathers were clearly against the Globe. You can see that in the quotes.^Alright Thanks
The condemnation of Galileo does not speak of the globe, it is true. But this is probably because of what exactly it was that Galileo proposed, and there was not much need to go further. It may also have been because there were a lot of people who believed in the globe in the Church, and the Holy Office was threading carefully.
Ptolomy's Almagest was being universally taught at the time,(for the good things in it), but it also contained the globe error.
The problem with geocentrists is that they take the galileo condemnation and don't want to go further than that. As if that is the only condemnation that could be made. Like children latching onto a toy and refusing to let go.
.
You did not read far enough in the metabunk forum. A few posts accused them of not having a level laser. BTW a few dozen meters with one centimeter's error (or even one millimeter!) would not ensure a level instrument for projection across several kilometers. They would have needed to establish less than one millimeter variation over 300 meters, by checking in opposite directions, before they would have reasonable assurance of an adequately level laser. Then their accuracy would have been within 3 millimeters in one kilometer or 6 in two or 9 millimeters in three kilometers.
.
Be that as it may, the ultimate accusation on the metabunk site is in regards to the distortion that occurs over such surfaces as bodies of water, especially when there is an inversion layer (warm air on top of cold air).
Define "up"."Relative to what?" Words only a globalist would say and such a modern notion often conveniently transposed onto morals. Direction is absolute on a flat geocentric earth. Up is up, to heaven, above the head. Down is down, to hell. West is west, where the sun sets. East is east where the sun rises. Simple.
Go on.
Sideways? Relative to what?
Relative to a line parallel to an assumed flat Earth?
Sideways relative to the alignment of my body?
Why are you having such trouble grasping that a direction is not an absolute but a relationship between two points, from one toward another? Of course going to Heaven meant going "up", because that's what "up" meant: the perpendicular direction from the Earth towards the heavens. It's a tautology. And this definition applies is a spherical model of the cosmos (which was the Medieval view), and does so far more elegantly too.
This is how stupid you are being:Except for the antipode for which the actual direction is rendered false.
(https://i.imgur.com/rY1s3lH.jpg)
You have the capacity for logical though of a five-year-old. Direction is by definition a geometrical relationship between two points in a space. Stop being a buffoon. It's impossible to specify a direction without specifying it in relation to two points, and you IN FACT do exactly that in your "flat Earth" modelDirection is necessarily relative on a ball: For those on the top, up may be up, but to those on the bottom the top guy's up is the opposite direction for them and therefore, down. The guy on the side's 'up', is not up to the guy on the top, nor to the guy on the bottom. There is no top, no bottom, no up, no down, no east, no west, no north, no south, no horizontal and no vertical, on a ball. Its all relative.
Up is up - a meaningless tautogoly.
Up is toward heaven - establishing relativity and conceding the point
Above the head - the direction of my head changes, so either "up" changes, making it completely arbitrary relative to the abritrary position of my head, or "above" means the same thing as "up", making it circular.
Note how I did not state that the location of Heaven and Earth are not absolute and objective realities, or something "relative".
As expected, you just don't get it. You lack the necessary basic capacities of analytical thought.Flat earth cannot be rotated arbitrarily in reality. Up and down cannot be rotated arbitrarily. Up is up for all people at the same time above their heads, something true only on a flat earth. Otherwise, up is out, down for some, and totally relative in reality making it 'not up'. And that is a lie.
You have implicitly defined "up" in the flat model as the direction from Earth toward the heavens, yet you refuse to be consistent in this definition when you look at the spherical model, which would result in this:
(https://i.imgur.com/zdhy8Jo.jpg)
Instead, you project the flat model onto the spherical model, maintaining the definition of "up", not in relation to the Earth and heavens of the spherical model, but in relation to the Earth and heavens of the flat model. But there's a further caveat: you have no basis from which to align this flat model with the spherical model. It can be rotated arbitrarily in the projection.
No: DIRECTION is IN PRINCIPLE a geometrical relationship BETWEEN TWO POINTS. This has nothing to do with any choice of geometry or cosmic model. Heaven is where it is,a nd the Earyh is where it is: but the direction from one to the other is a function of their respective positions.I did. Up is above your head. Where heaven is. Down is down, where hell is. East is east where the sun rises and west is west where the sun sets. Get off the spinning ball and you'll know which end is up.
But this is a pointless discussion as it's clearly all flying over your head.
Again: define them abolutely. You can't do it, but you're too dense to understand why your attempts at it are inadequte.
Ye gods, you are a moron.Up is up above your head when you don't flip upside down. It really isn't all that hard. True is true. Level is level. The horizon is horizontal, etc. Unless earth is a ball. Then things get real dishonest. Because up/down/good/bad is whatever you make it, relative to all, even non-existent. The spherical, spinning, rotating earth is Satan's re-creation of earth in his own image. And its chaos. Even a stationary earth ball carries that chaos into the void of ridiculous and leaves everything in doubt. You don't have to bullwhip me calling me names in order to get your point across. I just don't buy it because its nonsense.
You don't get the point of the diagrams I posted or what I'm saying. Your comment is irrelevant to them. The questin is, since you're continually taking terms, viz. geometrical objects, defined in relation to a flat model and projecting them into a spherical model, what are the correct transformations to be employed in this projection? They are arbitrary. We could just as well use eithe rof these:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJXek75.jpg)
When I perform a handstand on a flat Earth, is up still above my head?
If yes, how is "above" distinct from "up", and how does this then constitute a defintion?
If not, how does this constitute a definition?
And this is just a series of non sequiturs. Again you're implicitly projecting a flat model over a spherical model in order to define terms in the spherical model, and its leading you into confusion.
While I haven't studied the question of Flat Earth in depth, I am intrigued by the results of that Hungarian laser experiment..